*®&{$£' 



hmf^riif^^ 



a™ 






'^m^^M 






ffiMJtfMJ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

@^ii@ojo|n#^ 

Shelf _d-l~- 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



i tefaM^ 



A^A 



v Aa AftAA 



W^/ViA 



VwSa /V3^*^ 



!23m 






V. A ^,» 



WaTYV 



sAAAaA, 



^ a aa^a^ AA ^ a;; ^^ 






. r ,o .■->.-> 



"iWft/N' 



*' fc»A« 






Wrmr^tt^, 






mr 1 



A^AA-A^; 



A.AAaAAaa 






.'AAa^AAaa / 












^^^^^^^liiii 



PRICE, lO CE3NTTS. 

REPORTER 

AND 

SOCIALIST. 



An Interview explaining the Aims 
and Objects of Socialism. 



— BY- 



ALEXANDER JONAS. 



NEW YORK, 188S. 

ALEXANDER JONAS, 184 William Street. 

P. 0. Box 3560. 



&JI* 



*-a { 



(COPYRIGHT SECURED.) 



-J 



Wetzel & Oehler, Printers, 137—139 Chatham Street, N. Y. 



REPORTER and SOCIALIST. 



An Interview Explaining the Aims and 
Objects of Socialism. 




BY ALEXANDER JONAS, 



The subjoined interview is not a mere fiction; it has really 
taken place, a Socialist having been interviewed* by a Re- 
porter. And, the reader will see that the Reporter when 
he, obeying the orders of his editor, went to this interview, had. 
not the least idea of what the socialists want; but he was filled 
to the brim with all the current prejudices against Socialism 
and its demands held by a large part of the public, and prin- 
cipally of that part which is commonly called the "educated 
class." For this reason the Socialist was compelled, so to 
speak, to commence with the "ABC" in order to adapt his ex- 
planations to the intellectual capabilities of comprehension of 
the Reporter. And this is also the reason why this interview is 
best adapted for circulation among those who know little, or 
nothing, about Socialism, and whom to enlighten and to 
instruct it is necessary to use plain and simple language. 

The interview proceeded as follows: 

Reporter: I have come to ask you, for the enlightenment 
of the readers of our paper, what are the aims and objects of 
your party, the Socialistic, or Communistic party, and by what 
means they intend to accomplish these aims and objects. 
Would you please to first tell me, in as few words as possible, 
what the socialists want ? 



4 



<b 



CP 



<^ 



Socialist: To be brief: The Abolition of the capitalistic 
mode of production and introduction of a social system of 
production. 

Reporter: I don't understand you. 

Socialist: I don't doubt, for it is a matter to which the 
Press very seldom devotes either space or time, and if it really 
does, it shows an enormous amount of ignorance in treating the 
subject in question. Therefore, if you really intend to instruct 
yourself for the benefit of your paper — do you have that in- 
tention ? 

Reporter: Most assuredly. 

Socialist: Now then, if you really have this intention, and 
if you are not merely bent upon writing up a sensation it will 
be necessary to proceed systematically — to commence with 
the letter A and to go through until the letter Z be reached. 
For. this purpose allow me, for a moment, to change places, 
and let me ask some questions of you. 

Reporter: I have not the least objection. 

Socialist: Do you know how at the present day the things 
man needs to satisfy his wants, to wit: bread, meat, and other 
victuals, houses, clothes, shoes, arms, tools, sewing-, threshing- 
and all other machines, fancy goods, and commodities of every 
kind are produced ? 

Reporter: They are produced by labor, as they were al- 
ways. 

Socialist: Please be not too rash, youg man, "by labor" — 
is right; but "as always" is wrong. 

Reporter: May I ask why ? 

Socialist: To be brief: The kind of labor is not the same 
"as always." Take any article you like, for instance boots and 
shoes, don't you know that they are produced differently from 
what they were formerly ? 

Reporter: You mean to say more at wholesale, with the 
assistance of machinery ? 

Socialist: That's it. And of the immense quantities so pro- 
duced but very few people have an idea. There, look at the 
figures of the census in regard to the manufacture of boots and 



shoes. The aggregate value of merchandise produced at 
wholesale, in factories etc. in this branch of industry during 
1880 amounted to $166,050,354, but the production in small 
shops, so to speak, at retail, for customers etc., amounted to not 
more than $30,870,172 (which probably even included all re- 
pairs etc); the production at wholesale employed 111,152, while 
the small fry production employed but 22,667 masters and 
journeymen in 16,613 shops* 

Reporter: This is surprising indeed. 

Socialist: And if you take any other branch of industry, be 
it simple or difficult, complicated work, you will find the same 
proportion everywhere. Moreover, if you take the statistics of 
less recent times, for instance the U. S. census of 1870, or even 
the official statistics of European countries, which are more 
complete and elaborate, you will be astonished to see how ra- 
pidly the number of articles is growing that are being pro- 
duced at wholesale, and how small is the amount of commodi- 
ties produced by the old method of handiwork. And this pro- 
cess, going on now upon the vast field of industry, is extending 
to that of agriculture and commerce also. More and more with 
every year it becomes more profitable to cultivate the soil by 
means of machinery, and the better the latter the larger is the 
yield of the soil. Therefore, we see, as for instance in the 
United States, gigantic farms developing themselves of whose 
dimensions those living in the cities have almost no conception, 
and whose owners in consequence of an advantageous division 
of labor and of smaller expenses in comparison to the farmer 
who has no machines, and finally by their being favored by re- 
. duced railway freight-rates, can throw their products upon the 
market at lower prices than the smaller farmer; and, it is but 
natural that the latter cannot stand such competition; he first 
mortgages his farm and then ends in ruin. I think it is need- 
less to tell you, who lives in a large city, that the same process 
is going on upon the exciting field of commercial enterprise. 

Reporter: But is not this an advantage to the people at 
large ? Are not all things becoming better, cheaper and more 
plentiful than they were formerly ? < 



Socialist: We shall consider this question further on. At 
present you will please tell me whether or not at the time when 
everything was produced by hand, with cheap tools, and upon 
a small scale, the individual worker upon every field of industry 
could not make himself independent more easily than to-day ? 

Reporter: I admit that. 

Socialist: Does not production, at the present time, if it is 
expected to be successful, need large amounts of capital? 

Reporter: It does. 

Socialist: Then you admit that comparatively few people 
can become independent while the rest, the overwhelming ma- 
jority of all men, must necessarily remain wage-workers, depen- 
dent upon somebody, for all their lifetime. Now then listen: 
this method of capitalistic production — I hope you now under- 
stand the term — we propose to abolish. 

Reporter : For pity's sake! So it is true then what they say 
about the socialists, that they want to destroy all machinery ? 

Socialist : Don't be too hasty in your conclusions, but do 
as Shakespeare says, and "Wipe away from the table of your 
memory all trivial fond records" of destroying machinery, 
dividing of wealth, etc., written upon it by the ignorant press 
and by our designing enemies with the evil intention of mis- 
representing us. If I say that we propose to abolish the 
capitalistic mode of production, it does not follow that the 
machines must be destroyed. 

Reporter : But the invention of the steam-engine and all 
other machines have caused this "capitalistic" mode of pro- 
duction to develop itself, as you have stated quite correctly.' 
How are you going to remove it without putting the machines 
out of the way ? 

Socialist : The characteristics of capitalistic production 
are twofold. It is a production deserving of its name only 
when it employs large amounts of machinery, and factories, 
which to build requires a large amount of capital — as we have 
stated already. We desire not only to preserve this phase of 
capitalistic production because it saves human labor and pro- 



— 1 - 

duces hundred-fold what had formerly to be made by the mus- 
cular exertion of the worker, and it does it better and quicker 
than the hands of the workman, but we would even strive to 
extend and improve upon it. 

Reporter : And what about the other phase of capitalism? 

Socialist : It is the one we desire to abolish. It represents 
the "true inwardness," the sum and substance of capitalism, 
and in carrying on production at wholesale (and not, as it used 
to be in the past, when production was carried on by individ- 
uals on a small scale* and in the special interest of these very 
individual producers) i. <?., that a certain quantity of commod- 
ities of one kind is being produced by dozens, hundreds, thou- 
sands of workmen co-operating in the process of production, 
but exclusively for the advantage of one \ or several individuals— 
for the advantage of the boss, or bosses. 

Reporter: And pray, why is it that the socialists want to 
abolish this phase of "capitalistic production ?"' 

Socialist: Because it is unjust in its very essence, and its 
consequences are detrimental to human society. Because it is 
the main cause of the misery prevailing in the so-called civil- 
ized countries to-day, It causes that part of the people who 
are condemned to a life of hard and poorly paid wage-labor 
without any hope to extricate themselves and their descendants 
from such a miserable lot to daily increase and to continually 
sink to a lower depth of degradation. It causes the so-called 
middleclass to disappear slowly while, on the other handf it 
amasses enormous, astonishing wealth in the hands of a few — 
the result of hundreds of thousands being robbed of the fruit 
of their toil. It causes immense fortunes, the possession of 
which enables a small number of individuals to not only in- 
crease their power by which they appropriate the labor of 
others to their own use, but also to arrogate to themselves all 
political and social power that they may "hx" Legislatures, 
Judges, Newspapers, Boards of Aldermen, Police, etc., to serve 
the interest of their own class exclusively. It will hardly be 
necessary to explicitly prove this assertion to you, as every 
one who reads the daily papers knows it to be true; and every 
paper, also the one you represent, furnishes the facts to prove 
it almost every day in the year. 



Reporter: Then you are of the opinion that in this respect 
there is no difference in the condition of the laboring people 
of despot-ridden old Europe and of our republican America, 
where there is room enough for many more millions. Don't 
you think that your ideas emanate merely from the condition 
of affairs in Europe, and that your conclusions have no bear- 
ing upon America? 

Socialist : This is one of the inferences made by the ignor- 
ant press quite frequently, because editors in general know 
nothing of the reality of things; for, if they did, they would 
soon find out that just this very inference proves the fallacy of 
their reasoning from what I have said before this. What is 
the alleged difference in the conditions of Europe and Amer- 
ica? That Europe is governed by monarchical rulers and their 
heelers; that it is in continuous readiness for war; that every 
square foot of soil is taken, i. e. that the country is overpopu- 
lated; while America is a Republic, and has room for many 
more millions of settlers, who, also — as it is alleged — have easy 
access to the soil free of cost (and this is the vital point in the 
question before us.) And now, I will not even proceed to in- 
vestigate whether under our present republican institutions as 
they were shaped by the prevailing system of corruption, the 
people do not pay more in the form of indirect taxes and all 
sorts of fees etc. to their National, State and Municipal Gov- 
ernments, than is exacted from European nations for the sup- 
port of their rulers and their standing armies ; I think this 
could be proven by statistics. Neither do I desire to discuss 
the fact that the Monarchies and Republics of Europe (for 
there are such also) have laws and institutions by which it is 
attempted, if not to remove the root of the evil, to at least 
prove that European governments have the desire to further 
the interests of the working people by giving them factory in- 
spection, by partly or entirely forbidding child-labor, etc.; by 
governmental life insurance, sick and accident benefit funds ; 
by reducing the hours of labor, by establishing bureaus for 
Labor Statistics etc., institutions that either do not exist in the 
United States or are in an undeveloped state as yet. We shall 
not 'consider these points though, I think, we would find 
thatTthe working people of the United States are not so 



— 9 — 

well taken care of in regard to their safety from accident 
in factories, etc., than those of Europe ; but we shall proceed 
to the principal point directly, to the alleged fact that Europe 
is over-populated, and that therefore the European nations 
must become miserable, while in America there is room for 
uncounted millions who could live in ease and superabundance. 

Reporter : But, you won't deny that Europe is overpop- 
ulated ? 

Socialist : Of course, I will. Not to speak of countries 
like Russia, Turkey, etc., where overpopulation is out of the 
question, I shall but mention what Justus von Liebig, the cele- 
brated chemist, who made agricultural chemistry a special 
study, said more than thirty years ago, that Germany, if it 
were cultivatad systematically after a certain scientific plan, 
could support seventy million people comfortably, while to- 
day there are but forty-five millions in Germany, and they 
don't live very comfortably indeed! But, let us talk about 
America. 

Reporter: Indeed, that would be more important. 

Socialist: And now I ask you: Is it not a fact that 
in the United States are tens of thousands of workmen 
in all branches of industry daily clamoring for work without 
being able to procure employment ? Is it not a fact that the 
number of unemployed workmen during the different periods 
of every year, when business is dull for the respective branches, 
increases tenfold ? Is it not a fact that the workers of all 
branches in general receive miserable wages, as is shown by 
the figures given by the U. S. Census according to which the 
average amount of wages in the North Atlantic States is $1.19^ 
per day, in the Western States $1.61, in the Northern Middle 
States $1.18, in the Southern Atlantic States $0.76, in the 
Southern Middle States $0.93, and that the average amount in 
the entire United States — as far as industrial establishments 
are concerned — is $1.15^2 per day ? Is it not a fact that, from 
time to time, -we have terrible economic crises, like the last 
one that lasted from 1873 to 1878, and by which perhaps half 
a million of honest, industrious, saving workmen were reduced 
to the condition of tramps who went down in misery, degrada- 



— to -* 

tion and starvation, while hundreds of thousands of those be- 
longing to the middle class became proletarians? Is it not a 
fact that our factories are filling up with female and child 
workers at a shockingly rapid rate ? Are not these all facts that 
can, at any time, be proven by figures not to be denied by any- 
body who would blush to tell an untruth ? And all this in spite 
of our boasted republican institutions ; in spite of the un- 
counted millions of alleged free and fertile acres of land ; and 
m spite of the fact that our country is not by any means in- 
habited by idiots but by a conglomeration of energetic and 
intelligent races ! 

Reporter: This picture of yours seems .... 

Socialist (interrupting) : Look at the facts, young man ! If 
you think my picture is overdrawn you forget that I have cited 
nothing but hard, cold facts. But, what am I to say ? Words 
are too mild, indeed, to describe the real state of affairs. We 
have been speaking of people working in factories almost ex- 
clusively. But how about the miners and others who are in a 
much worse condition than the factory hands; and how about 
the agricultural laborers who are employed but part of the 
year, and must be contented with the most miserable of living. 
And here we have the laborers employed at the building trades, 
the bricklayers, carpenters, all of whom on an average are in 
no way situated better than the factory workers; also the small 
farmers who are in debt up to their very teeth, and engaged in 
a hopeless struggle against the gigantic farms of capitalists and 
stock-raising monopolists, besides being almost strangled by 
railroad corporations 

Reporter: But are not those employed in stores and offices 
to be counted among the working people ? 

Socialist: Of course, everyone who is engaged at some use- 
ful labor of any kind is a worker, and he who receives wages 
for his work is a wage worker. And among these you find the 
same misery; there are tens of thousands of miserably paid, 
hard working telegraphers and railroad employees, car-drivers 
and conductors, hundreds of thousands of male and female 
clerks and salespeople who, if that be possible, are situated 
almost worse than common 'laborers,—- not to speak of the 



— ii — 

misery among the proletarians of the pen and other wage work- 
ers — doing brain work. And these comprise, excepting the 
well-to-do and wealthy classes which in number amount to 
hardly ten per cent, of the entire population, about the whole 
nation. Now then, what is the reason that such a condition of 
affairs is little different from what it is in Europe ? I admit 
that the people in this country are a little better off than Euro- 
pean workmen; but, what is the reason that such a condition 
was possible at all, in spite of the immense advantages we 
have in the unbounded natural resources of this country ? 

Reporter: I have an idea of what may be the cause; but, 
being so little acquainted with all these things, that are ex- 
plained to me for the first time in such a comprehensive man- 
ner, I hardly dare express my opinion in regard to the matter. 

Socialist: But it is very simple; for, equal causes produce 
equal results everywhere. The present mode of wholesale 
capitalistic production in this country is, in all its aspects, 
entirely equal to that in Europe; in Ohio as well as in Ger- 
many, in Pennsylvania as well as in England. Or, what is 
the difference in the condition of the workmen of a machine 
shop in Sheffield or Berlin or of those in New York and Phila- 
delphia ? What is their situation in life, what are their pro- 
spects for the future, what are their wages, and how are they 
treated by their employers? Is there really any difference per- 
ceptible ? How do the coal miners of Illinois and Pennsylvania 
compare with those of Belgium and England ? Is there any 
difference between the agricultural laborers of Great Britain, 
who are driven like so many sheep by their overseers from 
estate to estate, and the American farm-hands who are subject 
to the same process of being herded together like criminals 
upon the gigantic farms of our celebrated Northwest and of 
California? What difference is there between the women, girls, 
children ^and clerks who are working for starvation wages at 
the immense salesrooms of the Bonmarche, and other stores in 
Paris, in London, St. Petersburg and Berlin, and the same kind 
of poor creatures you see in the stores of New York, Phila- 
delphia and other American cities, where you can buy anything 
from a pin to a piano ? Everywhere the same causes, and con- 
sequently the same results. The world over these wage slaves 



12 — 



-— -that's the word — receive for their hard day's work an amount 
hardly sufficient to enable them to live, and they do live a life 
the like of it in the respective countries is considered one of 
utter want and misery. And everywhere to these millions of 
workers, to be sick or out of employment even for a very short 
while means desolation and despair. They are all without any 
hopes for the better in future times; they have no prospects to 
extricate themselves from this quagmire of misery, and to be- 
come independent that they may live in comfort and ease as 
human beings ought to; and this condition prevails in New 
York as well as in Paris, in San Francisco as well as in Man- 
chester. Such is the inexorable economic law for all countries 
of the globe, and there is a difference only in the condition of 
nations so far, as opinions differ in regard to what is to be con- 
sidered a " low standard of life." But even supposed — fori 
do not admit it yet — that the "low standard of life" for the 
United States be comparatively the highest of all countries, it 
would not change the fact that the standard of life in general for 
all working people is falling off to a lower level continually, and 
that larger numbers of people are being reduced to a lower 
standard with every day in the year. 

Reporter: You would then, if I understand you right, at- 
tribute the fact that the working people of America have a 
comparatively better standard of life — be it ever as low as you 
describe it — for all that to the more favorable, natural resour- 
ces of this country ? 

Socialist : Not only do I attribute it to them, but also to 
the former and higher standard of life to which the entire 
American people was accustomed before capitalism introduced 
its detrimental mode of production. Resistance against lower- 
ing the standard of life retards the social upheaval which the 
force of circumstances must finally bring about irresistibly. 
And as to our " uncounted millions " of acres of fertile lands 
open to all who desire to settle down upon them, you know 
well enough that this is hardly more than a ridiculous phrase. 
I want to see the man who is going to show me a plot of even 
100,000 acres of homestead land of any value whatsoever ! All 
the really valuable land has been taken up already. -Under the 
fearful corruption of our Congress, the people have been robbed 



— i3 — 

of millions of acres of the most fertile land by the devouring 
railroad monopolies. But, beside all this, the phrase " Go west, 
young man !" has no meaning whatever nowadays. Suppose 
that to-day out of 10,000 cigarmakers in any of the Eastern 
States 2,000 should become superfluous. Of course, they could 
not have saved anything out of their miserable starvation 
wages; how could they " go west" several thousands of miles, 
together with their wives and children ? What would be the 
amount of the capital necessary to enable them to do so ? It 
would probably amount to more than was needed to bring 
them to New York from Liverpool or Hamburg. And is there 
anyone to believe that a cigarmaker, who has made cigars all 
his lifetime, would make a successful farmer all of a sudden ? 
Let him be placed, with a plough and an axe and other tools, 
he has to buy first, upon a piece of untilled soil, and the result 
will be that he starves to death ! 

And all this goes to prove that, whatever advantages America 
may possess, or have possessed, on account of the immense 
wealth of her natural resources, or in consequence of her 
political institutions, they are decreasing from the causes I 
have mentioned from day to day, and their beneficiary effect 
as well, while the consequences of the capitalistic mode of pro- 
duction which must naturally be the same everywhere, will 
make themselves to be felt more or less, according to the more 
or less favorable conditions in the different countries, with 
terrible force also in the United States in the same way as they 
are felt in Europe. Therefore, whosoever, like many of our 
capitalistic and journalistic snobs are doing, asserts that the 
effects of the capitalistic mode of production may appear in 
Europe but not in America; and whosoever denies that the 
same comparative amount of social misery exists in this coun- 
try, and that it was caused by the same agencies by which it 
was produced in Europe, belongs to the party of those who 
are what their name implies — u Know nothings" 

Reporter: I must admit that things are worse than myself 
and a great many other people may have thought before this, 
though I commence to understand that the reason of all this 
trouble is different from what most men think; yet, I should 
say that even under present circumstances the large mass of 



— 14 — 

workmen are enabled to economize and save that they may- 
take it easy when old age has arrived, and that many of them 
may become even wealthy and owners of real estate. 

Socialist: Are you joking, young man ? Nobody ever got 
rich by economizing and saving, but solely by making others 
work for himself, and by depriving working people of part of 
what belongs to them ; in short, no one can become wealthy 
except by robbing his fellow-men. May I ask you, Mr. Re- 
porter, the amount of your weekly income ? 

Reporter: Well, about twenty dollars. 

Socialist: And how many years have you been in the busi- 
ness at the same rate of wages ? 

Reporter: About fourteen years. 

Socialist: Then you have a good, snug sum of money at 
the bank! If you have saved only $10.00 every week, you would 
have, at $500 per year with interest for fourteen years .... 

Reporter (interrupting excitedly): Hold on, Sir — remember 
that I have a family of four. How could I save ten or even 
two dollars per week ? It is impossible — impossible! 

Socialist: Why, what, indeed? A man like you, earning 
$20.00 per week could not save ten, nor even two dollars ? 
How, then, do you expect a workman earning but ten dollars 
and less wherewith to support his family to save, in order, as 
you point it, to " become wealthy by economizing and saving ?" 
Haven't I shown you from the figures of the census that the 
wages of workmen in this country are far from ten dollars per 
week on an average ? Even if you consider, that sometimes the 
wife and children are helping to earn a living for the whole 
family. 

Reporter: Indeed, I forgot that 

Socialist: Then let me assist your memory a little further. 
Here I hold in my hand the industrial statistics of the City of 
New York in 1880. They are rather incomplete, as some of 
the most poorly paid trades have been left out, for instance 
brewing, weaving, etc; but there are 163 branches mentioned 
in the report of the Statistician. The largest number of people 
working at these trades on one day in 1880 was 262,459; reg- 
ularly employed were 133,998 men, 63,482 women, 2373 chii- 



dren under 16 years of age, or, on an average, about 225,000 
persons throughout the year. The aggregate amount of wages 
paid them was SS9, 5 13,934, or per week not quite eight dollars to 
every person, (these are wages actually paid, deducting the time 
of enforced idleness). Of course, these people were working in 
factories and at regular trades. If you add to their number 
the common laborers, street sweepers, etc., and then figure up 
the average amount of wages, you will be astounded at seeing 
with how little the hard ivorking inhabitants of New York are 
compelled to live. And, consider, that these figures were 
taken in the good times of 1880, and in the city of New York 
where, owing to a healthy and powerful labor movement and 
an influential labor press, wages were comparatively high. To- 
day the condition has grown worse, and, in the face of these 
facts and figures, dare anyone say that even five per cent, of 
the working population of this country can have the faintest 
hope of ever improving their present miserable standard of 
life? According to the same statistics during the year of 1880 
there were on an average about 50,000 persons engaged in pro- 
ducing men's clothing (64,256 being the largest number of 
persons working on one day; regularly employed 28,444 men, 
16,972 women, and 231 children — an average of about 50,000) 
who received a little over 14 millions of dollars in wages, or 
$280 for every person per annum. Or, take — according to the 
same statistical report — the 15,000 persons engaged in making 
cigars (17,183 being the largest number working on one day, 
regularly engaged men 9.323, women 4,575, and children 478 — 
an average of 15,000) who received an aggregate of six millions 
of dollars, or about $400 annually for every individual worker. 
How many of these people who are working from ten to four- 
teen hours per day are enabled to gradually become wealthy 
and independent by saving any part of their income ? And 
those who say that this be possible are capitalistic demagogues. 
As Napoleon I. assured his soldiers that every one of them car- 
ried the staff of a marshal in his knapsack, while in fact there 
could be only a few dozens marshals in France, so the capital- 
ists and their organs assure the workers that every one of them 
could become wealthy by working industriously and saving part 
of their wages! The result is the same in both cases. While 
hundreds of thousands of Napoleon's soldiers sacrifized their 



— 16 — 

lives and limbs for the sake of his ambition, the millions of 
workers of to-day sacrifice their lives, their health, their happi- 
ness, and their families for the sake of a comparatively small 
number of robbers, and many of them in the vain hope of be- 
ing able to become robbers themselves at some far distant 
period. Therefore, you see that it is the system that produces 
the present condition of affairs, not single persons, and that 
consequently a permanent improvement could be expected 
only from the thorough annihilation of the system. 

Reporter: Will you please allow me to repeat to you the 
notes I have taken so far, in order to see whether I understood 
you right in all things you have said. Now then: 

You first told me that the Socialises aim at abolishing " capi- 
talistic production; " 

You also said that such production consists in creating com- 
modities by applying immense amounts of capital for the ex- 
clusive benefit of a few individuals, or bosses, into whose 
pockets the entire profit is going; 

You further proved to me that the effects of " capitalistic 
production" are the same the world over; that in all civilized 
countries, be they republics or monarchies, with a system of 
either protection or free trade, these effects are equal in all 
of them; 

And you have also shown me to my great surprise from the 
figures of the census of 1880, that even the United States are 
not an exception from this rule, the American people seems to 
be more and more in danger of becoming pauperized and de- 
graded, to being but a mass of wage-slaves — a condition of 
affairs from which they, according to the nature of things, 
could not possibly extricate themselves, save very few exceptions. 

Am I correct in thus stating your views ? 

Socialist: Quite correct. 

Reporter: Well, then, let me ask some other questions: 
Has not this state of things prevailed at all times of history ? 
Could it possibly be otherwise ? Is it not but natural that it 
should be so ? 

Socialist: Not at all, if you mean to imply by the term 
"natural" that these conditions are invariable, immovably pre- 



- t 7 - 

scribed like the course of the stars and the revolutions of the 
earth, recurring eternally like ebb, tide and flood, and in no 
way subject to the desire and dictates of man. It is a condition 
of things that could exist and develop itself only under certain 
institutions and laws, created by man himself and changeable 
by other institutions and laws made by other men. You ask 
me whether this state of affairs has not always prevailed ? I say 
it has not, but similar conditions have been prevailing; that is 
to say, there have always been the rich and the poor, the rob- 
ber and his victim. But, while formerly poverty was decreed 
politically, so to speak, i.e. while the slaves of America, and 
the serfs and feudal dependents of Europe were compelled by 
law to give their labor to their masters and lords, at the present 
day prevails the altogether unlimited "freedom" of robbing 
and being robbed, u e. employer and worker are "free " to make 
their bargain for the remuneration to be accorded to the latter 
for his labor. But, in most cases the employer has not only an 
advantage over the worker, but he absolutely dictates the terms 
of the bargain: for, the worker is always compelled to sell his 
labor, he cannot wait for the price to go up. He must be 
satisfied with what he is offered; he cannot, as he could for- 
merly hope, to become independent, except in a very few 
extraordinarily fortunate cases, as he does not possess any 
capital in order to produce at wholesale by machinery, as the 
prevailing condition of things requires at present. But the 
boss has, as a rule, the choice of the workers, as there are 
plenty of them in the market, who were made superfluous by 
many new inventions and improved machinery. Almost all 
branches of industry are overcrowded by unemployed work- 
ers, and in addition thereto in this country the immense num- 
ber of immigrants landing at our shores every day serve to ac- 
custom the workers to accept any amount of wages offered to 
them, and consequently with the increase of the number of. the 
unemployed, the standard of life of those who are employed 
must needs decrease in proportion. Owing to this process, the 
effects of which are precipitated upon the American workmen 
by their employers, favoring the importation of European cheap 
labor, the standard of life of the American workmen has been 
reduced to nearly that of his European fellow-sufferer. 



— 1 8 - 

Reporter: But now I am going to ask you a question of 
vital importance: Is it at all possible for mankind to produce 
as much as is necessary to give comfort and ease, and sufficient 
of food and the luxuries of life to every human being ? Is it 
possible to produce a sufficient quantity of the means of life in 
order to guarantee an existence worthy of the dignity of man 
to every individual ? There was a time in history when this was 
not possible; but, whether it be possible ought to be seen by 
comparing the figures representing the increase of the national 
wealth of the different countries of the earth. 

Socialist: There you have hit the nail on the head almost 
directly. You know from the study of history that in ages 
gone by political oppression — not to speak of wars and other 
slaughter of human beings by which unimaginable wealth was 
destroyed — was one of the principal causes of the misery of 
nations; and that even in those ages the masses of the people 
might have lived better and more comfortably, if they had not 
been compelled to give up too large an amount of the products 
of their toil for the support of all sorts of idlers and parasites. 
But, it may be admitted that formerly, owing to the simplicity 
and insufficiency of the tools and other means of production 
used upon the different fields of industry, agriculture etc., and 
to the slowness of commerce and transportation, the necessary 
aggregate of commodities could not be produced and distri- 
buted in order to make life easy and agreeable to every one. 
But, since the steam engine has been invented and since the 
development of modern machinery, there is not the least 
shadow of a doubt but that a superabundance of the means of 
life could be produced for the whole of humanity. You men- 
tion the phrase " National Wealth. " It is a stupid phrase, for, 
at present all wealth is owned by private individuals, and not 
by " Nations/' Yet, let us assume that in reality nations did 
possess wealth; and let us assume that it was true what Mr. 
" Jim " Blaine said in the letter by which he accepted the 
nomination for the Presidency, that the " National wealth n of 
the United States had increased from i860 to 1880 about 30,000 
millions of dollars. If that sum had been distributed in a man- 
ner at least of some degree of equity and justice to all, every 
American would have received $600 of this increase, and every 



— i 9 — 

family would have got about $2,400. Mr. Blaine has also 
mentioned Illinois and Iowa as special examples of thrift and 
welfare. In regard to Illinois we have official statistics, and 
one of our Party's journals, in commenting upon Mr. Blaine's 
letter, says : 

" During the last twenty-four years the aggregate wealth of 
the inhabitants of the State of Illinois has increased from 900 
millions to about 3200 million dollars. The State has about 
2,750,000 inhabitants. If this wealth had been equally divided 
every inhabitant would have received $1,163.00, or every fam- 
ily of four not less than $4,654.00. There would be no paupers, 
nor any starvelings in the State. But how has that wealth been 
distributed in reality? The ones, and especially those who did 
little or no work at all, possess hundreds of thousands, yea mil- 
lions of dollars, while the industrious and saving people who 
worked hardest and enjoyed least are poor, miserable starve- 
lings." 

Reporter : This is a convincing argument, indeed. 

Socialist : But is it not natural? Only imagine a hundred 
thousand people living on a certain area of land, or better upon 
an island. The island is very large, but its entire soil cannot 
be cultivated, as the inhabitants have but very imperfect im- 
plements; they are likewise limited in regard to providing 
themselves with the necessary amount of clothing, houses, fur- 
niture, etc. These hundred thousand people are working 
hard from early morn till late at night, and yet they do not 
produce more than hardly enough to keep themselves from 
starving and all sorts of sufferings. All of a sudden some one 
of these islanders makes an invention by which every one of 
his fellow-workers is enabled to produce in less hours twenty 
times more than he had been producing heretofore. Conse- 
quently these hundred thousand people were able to cultivate, 
say four times the area of land than formerly; and of the 
different necessaries of life they could produce ten, twenty 
thirty, even one hundred times the amount produced by them 
before that invention had been made. - One should think that 
after a change as favorable as this these hundred thousand 
people would henceforth live in luxury, comfort, and super- 
abundance; that misery and starvation would no longer be 



— 26 — 

known among them? But, if this be not the case; if, to the 
contrary, the immense wealth thus created be used only by 5.000 
to keep themselves in luxury and idleness, while the re- 
maining 95, 000 continue to live a life of deprivation and 
suffering, it will be clear to even the simplest minded, that it 
is not the lack of means and the scarceness of products, but 
the faulty and unjust distribution of the goods produced by 
the people that causes a condition of affairs as I have just de- 
scribed it to you. 

The picture I have unfolded before your mind's eye — the 
political influences left aside altogether — gives you an idea of 
the economic condition of nations before the invention of steam 
machinery, and of the development of the present state of 
affairs, after the application of steam, to the present process of 
producing wealth. 

Reporter : But I do not quite understand how those few 
became possessed of the tremendous power of compelling the 
masses to work so hard and to give up all the wealth they 
produce ? 

Socialist: There we come to the pivotal point about which 
the whole question revolves. If a workman in a machine shop 
is sick and tired of the long hours he has to work, and of the 
small pay he gets, what can he do ? 

Reporter : He can go, and g^t some other place to work 
in; sometimes he finds one, sometimes he does not. 

Socialist : Quite correct. But suppose he finds other em- 
ployment: do you believe that his wages will be higher and 
that he will have to work less hours ? 

Reporter: I think that the wages and hours of labor in the 
different branches of industry are about the same everywhere 
in this country. 

Socialist : Indeed they are. Therefore, what could the 
workman do in order to improve his condition ? 

Reporter (hesitatingly) : I really don't know 

Socialist : Of course you don't. For, nobody else knows. 
Could he begin to manufacture on his own account in competi- 
tion with the large manufacturers ? 



Reporter (smilingly) : You make me smile — the workman 
has no means to compete with the capitalist. How could he 
build factories, setup steam-engines and other machinery; who 
would give him the raw material, and how could he furnish all 
the other necessaries for production on a large scale ? 

Socialist : Of course he can't. But to who?n do all these 
necessaries, these means of labor ; belong ? 

Reporter: To the manufacturer. 

Socialist : Correct. And so it is in all other branches of 
industry. The weaver in the cotton-mills, the miners in the 
coal and other mines, the laborer upon the gigantic farms of 
Dacota and elsewhere, the clerks in the large cities and in the 
offices of the railroad and telegraph companies throughout the 
country, they all are in about the same helpless condition. 
For, they are dependent upon. the possessors of the means of 
labor : i. e. the factories, the machines, the soil, the mines, the 
railroads and the telegraphs. And, because the capitalists, manu- 
facturers and monopolists are in the possession of the means 
of life, because these means of life are inaccessible to the labor- 
ing masses, and because they will remain to be so under the 
present social system, therefore the so-called employers have 
all the social and political power concentrated in their hands, 
and therefore they can compel the workers to work hard for 
miserable wages, and to hand over to their despoilers the larger 
part of the wealth produced by the labor of their hands. 

Therefore, the possession by the few of the complicated and 
gigantic means of production is the cause of the power of the few \ 
and of the misery of the millions. 

Reporter: But, are not these few entitled to possess the fac- 
tories, mines etc. ? Did not they become their rightful owners, 
and this by honest means, too? 

Socialist : Yes, according to present laws. But who ever 
told you, that these laws are not protecting a great wrong, and 
why they should not be abolished ? There are laws against the 
crime of usury in the different States of the Union. According 
to one of these laws, in one of the States it is a misdemeanor 
for anybody to take advantage of the trouble and difficulties 
in which somebody else may find himself by charging him more 



22 

than six per cent, for any amount of capital loaned; the law 
would consider it to be robbery. In another State, the law 
makes ten per cent, the limit of interest. While the one State 
considers it robbery to charge ten per cent, the other State 
allows it; in other words, the latter State legalizes robbery to 
the extent of four per cent. And thus the Socialists declare 
that, to amass wealth under the protection of the present laws 
and institutions to the detriment of those who produced it, is 
legalized robbery. But I shall ask you another question : To 
whom did, according to law and right, belong the slaves in the 
United States a quarter of a century ago ? 

Reporter : To the slaveholders, of course. 

Socialist : Just as to-day to the manufacturers, capitalists 
and monopolists of the present day belong the means of labor, 
i. e. the factories, the soil, the mines, railroads, telegraphs etc. ? 

Reporter: Just so! According to the same "right and 
laws!" 

Socialist : Exactly. And how was it that long before the 
civil war many thousands of the noblest minds, men as well as 
women, who were then cruelly persecuted, but who to-day are 
highly honored and whose names will be handed down by his- 
tory to all generations to come, were striving for the legal 
abolition of slavery ? How was it that after a bloody civil war 
that " divine institution'' was abolished, that the " sacred prop- 
erty " of the slave barons was simply confiscated ? 

Reporter: Well, to be honest: Because it was a shame and 
a disgrace to mankind. 

Socialist : And, because it is a shame and the very cause 
of the intellectual and physical deterioration of mankind, the 
laws and institutions under which it was possible that the few 
could despoil the masses of the people by monopolizing ail the 
means of life and labor, should just as well be abolished as the 
laws sanctioning and tolerating slavery ! You see this demand 
of ours is nothing extraordinary, as the same demands have 
been made at times gone by. But, I am going a little farther. 
You ask me whether or not the manufacturers etc. are entitled 
to the possession of the factories, mines, soil, roads etc. ? Did 
they acquire them by honest means? I say no ; for, if you ac- 



— 23 — 

knowledge that only honest labor entitles any one to the pos- 
session of labor's products, you must admit that the soil, the 
factories, mines etc., are not the products of the labors of their 
present possessors. 

Reporter : I acknowledge the soundness of that principle. 

Socialist: Well, then, we'll soon come to an understanding. 
We already agree that all means of life, all merchandise, all 
things of any value, have been created by labor. 

Reporter : And not by capital too ? 

Socialist : Capital alone cannot produce anything. But? 
what do you call capital anyway ? 

Reporter: Well, money for instance 

Socialist: Ah, you do ? Money, you mean, is capital ? Well, 
do take, for instance, a million greenbacks, or goldpieces, and 
put them upon a very big heap -of leather. Do you think that 
that heap of leather will ever be transformed into boots and 
shoes by those greenbacks or gold pieces? 

Reporter: I forgot that money is really nothing but a means 
of exchange. But machinery, factories, mines etc., that can be 
bought for money, are capital ? 

Socialist : Very well; and do you believe that machines, 
factories and mines could produce anything without labor ? 

Reporter: Of course not; but labo.r could not do so either. 
The workmen can't do anything without these factories, ma- 
chines etc., that represent capital. 

Socialist : And will you tell me, please, who made the fac- 
tories, machines, etc. Did the workmen, or did the capitalists 
do it? 

Reporter: The workmen did, but 

Socialist : Let me enlighten you a little further : Suppose 
that all owners of factories, machines, mines, all landlords and 
capitalists in general should take it into their heads to emigrate 
to Europe, or say — to the moon. Let them carry with them 
all money, all stocks, mortgages etc.; let them destroy all fac- 
tories and houses; let them fill up the mines; let them take 
everything they may claim as their " property," there is one 
thing they cannot take away — the land; they will have to leave 



— 24 — 

that behind. And the laboring people would remain where 
the land is, but they would be without any money, they would 
have no factories, houses, machines, mines etc. How long, do 
you think, it would take them to replace what was taken away, 
or destroyed, by the capitalists ? Well, it would be ridiculous 
to state the exact time; but you will admit that here the phrase 
" in less than no time " would be the most appropriate answer. 
Consequently you will now be convinced that all merchandize, 
all machinery, the means of labor, the tools by which all com- 
modities are produced, are created by labor, and by nothing 
else but labor. And now, let us see whether labor to-day re- 
ceives the well-merited reward for its exertions, or who takes it 
away from labor. 

Reporter : The investigation will be quite complicated, I 
suppose. 

Socialist: Not at all. It is as simple as it can be. Take 
any industry you like; take the manufacture of " agricultural 
implements," the first item mentioned by the U. S. Census. 
Suppose there are ioo workmen, foremen etc., employed in one 
factory at an average amount of wages of $10 per week. After 
the wages have been paid from the aggregate values produced 
by these ioo men, there remains a large amount, a small part 
of which is needed to replace and repair the capital used up by 
the process of production; and yet there is more left — more 
than the workmen received in wages 

Reporter : You forget the manufacturer, the Boss ! 

Socialist : Did I, eh? Of course, this is. very wicked. Well, 
he pays his best workman, the superintendent, who is conduct- 
ing the whole business, $30.00 per week, and he thinks that to 
be quite a good salary for the services rendered. Now, how 
much do you think the boss should get for his " services ?" 

Reporter : Well, he gets the remainder for his profit, of 
course. 

Socialist : He "gets" it according to our present nonsensi- 
cal institutions, undoubtedly. But, that isn't the question. The 
question is: To how much is he entitled for his labor, — if he 
really works — in view of the fact that he has already received 
the amount of interest allotted him for his capital invested in 



— 25 — 

the factory, and that he pays not more than $30 per week to his 
superintendent who is working from morning till evening, and 
who not only works with his hands, but also is doing difficult 
brainwork? What, in consideration of all these circumstances, 
is his labor really worth ? 

Reporter : Well, according to its quality — may be about 
$30, the same as the superintendent's ? 

Socialist : Be it so; but, let us be magnanimous and let us 
give him $60.00 per week; I think that will suffice. But now 
from the values (commodities) produced by the workmen there 
remains, after the wages having been paid, capital having re- 
ceived its interest, and the boss being munificently rewarded 
for his looking on, when the superintendent and his men were 
working, the snug sum of $50,000, which the boss takes to him- 
self to invest it in building a big double-tenement for forty 
families who have to pay him $5,000 annually in rent; or, he 
buys a big piece of land in the far west which, after a few 
years, a lot of poor immigrants will buy from him for ten times 
the amount he paid for it. I now ask you, who ^as produced 
the values represented by that $50,000 with which the boss 
who takes them for his own use, manages to increase the luxu- 
ries and comforts of his own sweet existence ? 

Reporter : The workmen produced it. 

Socialist : The workmen, and nobody else — is that it ? 

Reporter : So it is. 

Socialist: And now, don't you think that, according to com- 
mon sense and justice, the values represented by that $50,000 
should be used for the benefit of those who produced them ? 
Isn't that your opinion also ? 

Reporter : I see, at least, that after the capital invested 
having been rewarded and the boss having been taken care of, 
there is nobody else but the workman who has any just claims 
upon them. 

Socialist: And yet, they don't "get " anything except their 
scanty wages; and you see that all the capital held by capital- 
ists, manufacturers, monopolists etc., in whatever form it may 
be (factories, mines, land, railroads etc.) represents the aggre- 



— 26 — 

gate amount of wages earned by the workmen, but kept by the 
capitalists, who did not participate in its production. 

Reporter: I am really astonished at the conclusion we have 
come to, and I would not object to carrying out your proposi- 
tion to reward the workmen accordingly if you had not for- 
gotten to mention one very important factor : I mean the risk 
the employer takes when he invests his capital in any enter- 
prise whatsoever. We have taken as an example a factory 
where the annual profit amounts to $50,000. But, there are 
plenty of cases where $50,000 are sunk and no profit is made 
at all. What is an employer to do, who loses his money instead 
of making any? Should not the $50,000 be considered as a 
premium for the risk the capitalist takes in investing his prop- 
erty, and should it not be used for the purpose of insuring him 
against the losses of future years, or years past by ? 

Socialist: I shall answer that question later, when we shall 
consider the question of capitalistic risk, and, therefore, I wish 
you would ask some other questions now. 

Reporter : You have shown to me what is the cause of the 
miserable condition of workmen the world over, I admit, but 
I cannot see the remedy. I also concede to the Socialists, 
what all other fair-minded men will concede, that their manner 
of criticism in regard to economic conditions and their causes 
is powerfully convincing. But, I would be glad if you were 
able to show me that beside their critique the Socialists possess 
the prescription for the remedy of the evil ; I would be glad 
to hear what the Socialists propose to put in the place of the 
present faulty system. Therefore, will you please tell me what 
the Socialists propose to do ? You have told me already that 
they would not abolish the present system of production 
at wholesale by means of steam, machinery etc., but that they 
would even extend that system, and that only the manner of 
distributing the values so produced is to be changed, so that 
all who work shall participate in enjoying what has been pro- 
duced, and that the larger part of the product shall no longer 
remain in the hands of a few individuals. Can you briefly ex- 
plain to me how the Socialists would distribute the product of 
labor in a manner that would do justice to everyone ? 



Socialist: I think I can do that easily, and if you will listen 
attentively, you will soon find out what we want; and I hope 
that you will then likewise admit that u what we want," will be 
beneficial to mankind if it be carried out, and that it is rational, 
just, practical and feasible. 

Reporter : Proceed, I am ready to listen. 

Socialist: For facts and figures I must recur to the United 
States Census of 1880, and, as I did before, I take the very 
first item mentioned: "agricultural implements." According to 
the Census there were 1943 establishments in which such im- 
plements were manufactured, and the capital invested amounted 
to 62 millions of dollars. The number of workers employed 
in these establishments was 38,313 men, 73 women, and 1194 
children under 16 years of age. The amount of wages paid 
during the year was $15, 359,160, and the cost of the raw mat- 
terial is given at $31,531,170, while the aggregate value of the 
implements produced is figured at $68,640,486. From these 
figures we see — and every schoolboy can make the example — 
that every one of the workers employed in this branch of in- 
dustry received during that year $388.25 in wages, while the 
bosses, after paying the workmen, and after deducting the cost 
of the material and five per Cent, interest for the capital in- 
vested, put just $18,640,706 of the values produced into their 
pockets. In other words, — out of the labor of every worker 
whose wages in the average amount to $388.25 per year, they 
make $470.00. This is a proportion somewhat more unfavor- 
able than that mentioned by the Census as the average propor- 
tion prevailing upon the field of our industrial manufactures; 
for, on an average the Census shows that the capitalists 
" make" $1.08 for every $1.00 they pay out in the form of 
wages. 

Reporter : And do you believe these figures to be correct ? 

Socialist: They appear to agree with the statistics gathered 
by the different States and municipalities. But, if they are in- 
correct, they favor the capitalistic side; for, when they were 
gathered the capitalists, and not the workmen, were called 
upon to give them, and it is but natural that the capitalists 
should make themselves appear in the best light possible. You 



— 2$ 

probably know that in all cases when capitalists are asked to 
give the exact amount of wages and profits, they prefer to give 
big figures in regard to the former, and low figures in regard 
to* the latter. Therefore, we may safely assume that the Census 
shows the condition of workmen to be better than it really is, 
and it makes the capitalists appear to pocket less profits than 
they actually do. 

Reporter : I agree with you in regard to the inaccuracy of 
statements of capitalists in regard to their property, a fact that 
everybody will admit who, in times gone by when the law re- 
lating to income tax was in force, has studied the statements of 
rich men when the assessors of the tax department made their 
annual visits for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the 
personal property of these men. 

Socialist: Exactly. Yet, let us consider the figures of the 
Census to be correct, and make them the basis for our investi- 
gation. But, before we proceed any further, we shall consider 
the question of the risk the capitalist takes when he invests his 
capital in any enterprise. You made the remark that the cap- 
italist's big profit should be accorded to him to insure him 
against any possible losses. This seems to be the correct thing 
if you consider one individual manufacturer, but not the entire 
branch of industry to which his factory belongs. For, while 
of the 2,000 manufacturers of agricultural implements several 
hundreds went into bankruptcy, the aggregate profit of the 
entire branch amounted to immensely more than the aggregate 
of the losses would figure up; and that profit was created solely 
by the labor of the wage-workers employed in that branch. 
Consequently, if under the present system of capitalistic, and 
for the masses of the people, detrimental system of production, 
the individual speculator pockets the profit accruing from the 
production of his individual concern under the pretense that 
he must secure himself against possible losses, such claim may 
be allowed as long as that system prevails. But we desire to 
abolish it and to replace it by a system of national, co-opera- 
tive, or better social production, where the profits will be used 
not for the benefit of a few individuals but for the good of the 
whole commonwealth. And under such a system no bank- 



— 29 — 

ruptcies would be possible. Even under the present system 
where entire branches of industry sometimes fail and go under, 
the so-called National wealth is increasing faster than the 
population increases, which goes to prove that the laboring 
people, in spite of the reckless squandering of human labor on 
the part of the employing and speculating class, is continually 
producing more values which, if they were used for the benefit 
of the creators, would do away with all misery and distress as 
far as they are caused by poverty. 

Reporter: Then you mean to say that under a more rational 
system of production — as also the figures of the Census show — 
there would be no risk for the whole, as there is a risk for the 
single individual, under the prevailing capitalistic system of 
production ? 

Socialist : There you hit it ! and we are fighting the whole 
system. But now, let us proceed a little further. 

Reporter: All right. 

Socialist: In a country like this where the concentration of 
capital and wealth in the hands of a few is progressing so 
stupendously, it is easy to imagine that one of the 1943 manu- 
facturers of agricultural implements should succeed in becom- 
ing the possessor of all the other establishments; some of them 
he would purchase, others would be crushed in consequence of 
his ruinous competition, in short, that, after a certain length of 
time he would be the only man who manufactures agricultural 
implements; and, his branch of industry being protected, by a 
high tariff, from foreign competition, would he not have an im- 
mense advantage over the 1943 manufacturers now existing 
in the United States ? 

Reporter : Of course, he would. 

Socialist : And this would be but natural. As he has no 
competitors, he can produce just according to the demand. As 
all orders for goods used in the whole United States are com- 
ing to his office, he knows exactly how much is needed for the 
market. There will be no overproduction, consequently, as it 
must occur under the present system, when the 1943 manufac- 
turers every one of whom only knows the demand of the limit- 
ed number of his customers, but is ignorant of the demand of 



— 3° — 

the whole market, are competing with each other and every 
one of them is hoping to sell more of his goods than the 
njan he directly competes with. Neither will there be any 
more bankruptcies; for, the one man who supplies the whole 
country, cannot fail under any circumstances; bankruptcies are 
only the consequence of competition. There are other ad- 
vantages for the one big monopolist who has swallowed all 
the rest of his competitors. He can place his factories where 
the raw material is handy, so that he loses nothing by 
costly transportation; and he can also introduce a system 
of the most rational division of labor, by which he saves 
an immense amount of wages; furthermore, he can buy 
all the necessaries of his process of production at wholesale, 
or cheaper than his former competitors could. So you see, 
that the cost of such a system of production being considerably 
reduced, there would be no expenses for advertising the goods, 
and other advantages would contribute to make the position 
of that single manufacturer exceedingly agreeable. 

Reporter: No one would doubt that, but I do not under- 
stand what you are driving at. 

Socialist: Have some patience. You'll soon see it, and you 
will then perfectly understand it. The result of all these ad- 
vantages on the part of this one manufacturer of agricultural 
implements would be that he could, with a smaller number of 
workers and with less capital than his former competitors 
needed, produce as much as was produced formerly; or, with 
the same number of workers and the same amount of capital 
he could produce more than the 1943 manufacturers produced 
in 1880. 

Reporter: Take, for instance, for simplicity's sake, the lat- 
ter proposition; and, suppose that there was a demand also for 
such a larger quantity of products, as the manufacturer, who 
exactly knows the general demand, would not otherwise pro- 
duce it. 

Socialist : Very well; and it would be no exaggeration if 
we suppose the aggregate value of all products (of the agricul- 
tural implements) produced at such extraordinary advantages 
would be 100 millions instead of 69 millions, as it is to-day. 



— 3i — 

Reporter: All right. 

Socialist : .We again take the figures presented by the 
census. This one manufacturer and monopolist employs in 
his finely and utterly practical equipped factories some 40,000 
workers — to take a round number — who were working in the 
1943 establishments of I880. They comprise the hard work- 
ing laborer, the skilled workmen, foremen, superintendents, 
engineers, draughtsmen, inventors, clerks, book-keepers, cash- 
iers etc., in short the entire apparatus of " hands " and brains 
necessary to conduct the business of the gigantic concern. To 
these 40,000 the monopolist pays, as the census shows, $388 
each per annum. Some receive more, others less, but the ave- 
rage is $2,SS, or in all about $15,500,000 per year. The cost 
of the material would be increased, as instead of 69 millions 
the aggregate value of the product amounts to 100 millions. 
But, as this single manufacturer can produce everything much 
cheaper than his former competitors, we may consider our 
estimate of the increase in the cost of the material to 
be very high if we raise it from $31,500,000 to $40,000,000. 
Taking these figures to be fair and correct, we would have the 
following tables I herewith write down for you to furnish a 
striking comparison: 

Under the Present System. 

(According to Census.) 

Number of factories and shops for the manu- 
facture of agricultural implements x >943 

Number of workers employed 39?56o 

Capital invested $62,000,000.00 

Cost of material etc 3 1,531-, 170.00 

Amount of wages paid in one year 15,359,610.00 

Value of implements produced 68,640,486.00 

Average amount of wages paid annually to 

each of the workers employed $388.25 

Annual profit of every one of the 1,943 manu- 
facturers after $3,100,000 having been de- 
ducted for interest and wear and tear of 
capital invested $9,598.00 



_ 3 2 — 

Under one boss monopolizing the entire branch of 
industry. 

Number of establishments of immense propor- 
tions 10 

Number of workers 39>56° 

Capital invested $62,000,000.00 

Cost of material 40,000,000.00 

Aggregate amount of wages 15,359,610.00 

Value of implements produced 100,000,000.00 

Annual average of wages for each worker cal- 
culated as above ' $338.25 

Profit of boss $41,440,390.00 

You may now interpose any objections you like to the fair- 
ness or correctness of these figures, but you will be unable to 
show the result to be very different from that arrived at by this 
simple example in arithmetics, always supposed that you do 
not go outside of the figures of the census. 

Reporter : I will admit that, but your example only shows 
the results of monopolism, and it is not the picture you pro- 
mised of your imagined system of social production in the 
future. 

Socialist: In order to do that, we only need making an in- 
significant change in our pictorial example. Look here, Mr. 
Reporter : Is the monopolistic picture before your mind's eye 
in all its details? 

Reporter: It is. 

Socialist: Very well, then, one single move and you will see 
the whole picture of social production as proposed by the 
Socialists. 

Reporter: I am anxious to see it, indeed. 

Socialist: Take away that one man off the head of that big 
concern and there is the entire system by which society will be 
made happy and comfortable for all times to come. 

Reporter: How so? 

Socialist : Don't you see the point ? The concern goes on 
with its work undisturbed, for nothing has been changed in its 



— 33 — 

organic composition. The workmen are there, so are the fore- 
men, inventors, engineers, book-keepers, cashiers and finan- 
ciers; even the boss may remain if he be a thorough business 
man and a good organizer; he would be given a good salary 
(only think that the manager of the Interior Department of the 
whole United States gets not more than $8ooc annually) — in 
short all the elements have remained to make the business of 
the concern to be successful; there is but this difference that 
the 41 7uillions of dollars of profits hitherto pocketed according to 
present " right and custom," by the boss, would be used for the 
benefit of the workmen by whom the values represented by that sum 
had been created. And what would the aspect then be ? Every 
one of the workers would receive, on an average, a little over 
$1,047 out of that 41 millions; consequently, together with the 
wages he formerly received, he would have an amiual income of 
about $1^435. Of course, that wouldn't be according to pre- 
sent " Law and Right," but it wcruld be honest and fair, accord- 
ing to the principles of Reason and Justice. 

Reporter: Yes, but 

Socialist: I know there would come plenty of "buts " and 
" ifs." But, Mr. Reporter, I am ready to answer every one of 
them. 

Reporter: Well, then: Are all branches of industry to be 
organized that way, or similarly ? 

Socialist: All branches without exception: manufacturing in- 
dustries, agriculture, mines, commerce and transportation. In 
regard to the manufacturing industries, the advantages accruing 
from such a system are too apparent to need further discussion. 
But also in regard to applying that system to agriculture, it is easy 
to see that thereby mankind would immensely be benefitted. I 
have already mentioned to you what* Liebig, the scientist, said 
in regard to rationally organizing agriculture in Germany, and 
that thereby over 70 millions of human beings would be sup- 
ported in comfort and abundance ; and Mr. Liebig said so 
about forty years ago. In the meantime all sorts of machinery 
and implements have been improved and invented, and there- 
by agriculture would be improved and perfected to such an ex- 
tent, that many more millions than Liebig thought could be 



— 34 — 

supported. But this system could only be applied if the soil 
belonged, not to a few private individuals, but to the entire 
people. Only imagine if all the agricultural soil of the United 
States would be tilled and worked according to an uniform, 
scientifically prepared plan ? There would be no wasting, as it 
prevails to-day; the soil would not be " robbed "irrationally of 
its propagating powers as it is done to-day by people who do 
not care whether or not the generations to come will find good, 
fertile soil, or a barren desert from which everything valuable 
has been extracted by the irrational, reckless system called 
Raubwirthschaft by German economists, or the system of cul- 
tivating by robbing the soil of its fertility. A uniform, rational 
system applied to agriculture in the United States would pre- 
vent that immense quantities of grain and other products would 
go to waste and destruction, while of other products not enough 
has been raised for the demand of the market. And, if the 
same system were to be applied to our forests and timber lands 
which to-day are recklessly destroyed, we would not be in 
danger to see our rivers dry up and to have our grain-growing 
lands become sandy deserts. The application of such a system 
to our land and our forests would yield from three to four 
times the present quantities of grain, wood, and all other neces- 
saries of life with the same amount of labor performed at the 
present day, and you ought to know that the success of the 
agricultural labors of every nation in the world is the basis for 
its wealth and economic welfare. 

Reporter: There are some objections I would like to make, 
but I shall wait until you will have detailed to me the effect of 
your system upon the commerce of a large country like ours. 

Socialist : Commerce, as it is organized to-day, is equal to 
fraud and swindling to a large extent. And this for two rea- 
sons: First, it consists to a great deal in speculating, or bet- 
ting, without any actual exchange of merchandize, and second, 
it throws immense quantities of adulterated goods and victuals 
upon the market. These evils would disappear immediately 
under a socialistic system of commerce, and with its disappear- 
ance a large number of people now engaged in swindling and 
obstructing the well-being of mankind would become available 



— 35 — 

for honest and useful labor; it would be an enormous blessing 
for society. 

Reporter : I believe it would. There could be no Stock 
and Produce Exchanges then, under such a system ? 

Socialist: Of course not; for. there wouldn't be any paper 
values — the means by which speculating nowadays is made 
possible. 

Reporter: Would that be all the advantage of the system ? 

Socialist: Oh, no. The principal advantage would consist 
in doing away with the immense number of middlemen now 
hampering trade and commerce, and raising prices to an un- 
reasonable extent. From the great centres of social produc- 
tion the merchandise would be sent directly to the great stores 
and emporiums where the public could buy them without pay- 
ing tribute to the little profit-.monger through whose hands 
everything goes nowadays until the consumer finally gets it. 
And nobody would be cheated, no difference in prices would 
exist, and no one would get any adulterated food of any kind. 
There would be no miserable dirty little stores, with miserable, 
dirty, poor people in them, who have to make a living upon 
the wretches that come to them with their pennies to buy dearer 
than the richest pay for the best the market affords. 

Reporter: But who fixes the price of all commodities ? 

Socialist: We shall talk about that later. 

Reporter: Well then, as to railroads and telegraphs, the 
system of transportation and communication, I can easily see 
that it would be of advantage to society, to apply your system 
to these departments of the public service; but to do it, the 
public and the administration ought to be one, and not, as it is 
to-day, antagonistic to each other, and the former only a means 
for the latter to fatten upon. 

. Though I understand what you mean, and being able to 
imagine what the future organization based upon your princi- 
ples would be, I would like to ask a few more questions. I 
suppose — and it could not be otherwise according to what you 
have laid before me — that the land, houses, factories, machin- 
ery, mines, etc., the means of labor would under all circum- 



- 36 - 

stances have to belong to the whole people, to the common- 
wealth, and not to any individual, or corporation of indivi- 
duals ? 

Socialist: They would belong to the people. 

Reporter : I can also imagine how everything might be 
produced according to a rationally prepared plan. I can also 
see how a number of experts, elected for that purpose in an 
honest manner by the people, might agree, after having gathered 
the necessary statistics, upon the amount of commodities to 
be produced for the use of the whole people; and I also think 
that honest experts, in whom the people can trust, would man- 
age things better than the present politicians, who are not ex- 
perts and who have to be dishonest under the present system, 
while the experts of the future could be easily controlled by 
the people who know what they want and how things must be 
done, and who will neither have an opportunity, nor any desire 
to be dishonest, because dishonesty lacks its motive when prop- 
erty is held in common .... But why is it, that you are smiling 
Mr. Socialist? 

Socialist : I am smiling, Sir, because I am glad to see that 
you have made good progress in reasoning during the time of 
our conversation. From being a man who believed that the 
Socialists wanted to smash all machinery, you have become a 
zealous and able defender of our ideas. 

Reporter : Not yet. I have yet some grave objections in 
store for you. But, indeed, I admit that I think the question 
is well worth discussing. As I say, I can imagine how produc- 
tion might be remodeled according to your plan, and that thus 
great advantages would be gained for society; but, I don't be- 
lieve that such a mode of production would result beneficially 
to the individual worker. I think that there would be a lack 
of discipline, and that laziness would prevail to a great extent 
among people who are not under the orders of a boss in whose 
interest it is to make the workers exert themselves to their ut- 
most capacity. 

Socialist: You misjudge humanity. To the contrary, people 
would be more industrious and more willing to work than they 
are to-day. As long as the present system prevails, the work- 



— 37 — 

man has no other interest than to give as little labor as possible 
for the scanty wages he receives, and he does not care whether 
his co-worker is lazy or industrious, whether material and tools 
are wasted or not; for, to look out for all this does not increase 
his weekly wages a cent over what the competition upon the 
labor market puts in his pockets. But, under a system of co- 
operative, social production, as we desire to introduce it, the 
contrary would be the case. For, under such a system every 
worker is a partner in the business, and he knows that any 
neglect on his own part and that of his fellow-workers would 
be detrimental to the whole. Therefore, everyone is interested 
in the doings of everyone else, and the impulse of doing what 
is right and advantageous is much greater than under the rul- 
ings of an arbitrary self-interested boss. And it is but natural 
that the quality of labor should be improved under such a co- 
operative system, not to speak of the moral advantages it would 
offer, as it would raise the standard of morality; and the sense 
of right and justice would be more highly developed than 
among the oppressed and suffering wage-slaves of the present 
day. Therefore, you see that it is but natural, that not only 
the whole people, but also the individual worker would profit if 
the socialistic plan had been carried out. 

Reporter: And how are the prices for labor and its pro- 
ducts to be fixed ? To-day these things are regulated by supply 
and demand. 

Socialist: " Regulated!" Indeed, you call that "regulat- 
ing ?" Where the man who is laboring hardest gets the least, 
and the fellow who hardly does anything swallows the biggest 
and best pieces; where part of the products is depreciated by 
an insane system of overproduction, and the rest is made scarce 
and dear by being bought up, " cornered," by speculators, and 
kept away from the market until prices are so high that but 
few can pay them, and those who can't must suffer from want 
and starvation ! No, Sir; there will be no " regulating " like 
that in a society organized according to our ideas. Of course, 
we will not be able to figure as closely as to avoid that even 
one pair of boots remain unsold, or that not even a dozen of 
apples will go to waste 4 — and I mention this for the purpose of 
avoiding the ridiculous objections that are sometimes made iri 



- 3« - 

this respect — but I am convinced that supply and demand will 
be made to correspond with each other, and that the possible 
waste of material and labor will be reduced to almost nothing. 
Speculation by which prices are unnecessarily raised would be 
done away with altogether. Prices would be simply limited by 
the cost of production. 

Reporter : And what is the cost of production ? What ele- 
ments compose it ? 

Socialist : It is composed by the cost of the raw material, 
of the aggregate wages paid to the producer, of transportation 
and sale, and finally of the amount to be charged for the repair 
and renewal of the means of labor, tools, machinery, houses, 
factories etc. 

Reporter : And the question, whether anything be scarce 
or plentiful has nothing to do with prices ? 

Socialist : Only as far as the natural limits are concerned, 
i. e. as far as the raw material is produced by nature in larger 
or smaller quantities; also the greater or lesser skill necessary 
to produce a certain commodity is a factor in fixing the price 
of anything. 

Reporter: Then the amount of wages is the principal basis 
for fixing prices ? For, the raw material is produced by nature 
gratuitously. For, according to your plan, a ton of iron taken 
from amine and carried to some iron works, would cost not more 
than the wages of those who raise it from the earth and carry 
it to the place of its destination, to which would be added the 
amount necessary for repairing and renewing the machinery 
of the mine and of the carrying road; the iron would cost 
nothing as it belongs to society at large. 

Socialist : You are perfectly right. 

Reporter: And how are the wages to be fixed? 

Socialist : The mode of determining the amount of wages 
will be different in different periods. If we take the period 
to immediately follow our present state of affairs, all labor 
would be divided into four classes according to its quality, or 
the skill and time necessary to produce and to learn it. Of 
course, this is only to illustrate to you how the principle might 



— 39 — 

be carried out practically; to arrange the details would be for 
the experts of the future. These four classes of prices would be: 

A. For common labor, that anybody can perform without 
any preparatory apprenticeship. 

B. For skilled labor, like handling merchandise and ma- 
chinery, plowing, etc. 

C. For skilled labor of a higher degree, like cabinet- 
making, carpentry, weaving, and similar mechanical 
labor. 

D. For professional labor, engineering, drawing, calculat- 
ing, superintending, organizing, etc. 

All productive labor might be divided into four classes like 
these, and the price at a given duration of performance might 
be for 

Class A $1.00 

" B 1.50 

" C 2.00 

" D 2.50 

Besides, a lowest limit would have to be fixed for wages, or 
better, a lowest limit for the income of anyone to be guaranteed 
even to the most unskilled laborer. Let us say, that, for in- 
stance, at seven hours of daily toil the lowest amount of wages 
should be $20 per week; then the wages would be for 

Class A $20.00 

" B 30.00 

" C 40.00 

" D 50.00 

But I must insist that this is only an illustration, selected to 
give you an idea of the system; for, I am sure that in the future 
there will be a scale of wages much more elaborate and fitted 
to existing conditions and circumstances. Yet, I maintain this: 
That for the time to immediately follow the present system the 
difference between the highest and lowest income must not be 
too large, and that the lowest income must afford a comfort- 
able, happy existence, 



— 40 — 

Reporter: This seems to be plain enough, but nevertheless 
I must object. You make the lowest limit $20.00 — you might 
have just as well said $50.00. But the question is: will society, 
even if organized as you propose, be able to pay as much as 
that? 

Socialist : You mean to ask whether society would be able 
to produce as much as is necessary to make everybody com- 
fortable and happy ? We have answered that question already 
in the affirmative, basing our assertions upon the figures of the 
census. Of course the amount of wages, /. e. the money under 
the new state of society, would be nothing but an order for 
goods produced, and it is perfectly immaterial whether such 
order bears upon its face as many cents as we have figured in 
dollars, if only the cents buy as much of the products as the 
dollars would. The wages we have assumed in our table above 
are only to designate the proportionate share of the goods pro- 
duced to which all human beings, according to their ability 
and the time they spent in assisting in the production are en- 
titled. From this you see that by the introduction of such a 
system of wages the injustice of all accidents and incidents of 
fortune and misfortune would be obviated for one or the other 
branch of industry. Suppose, for instance, that during a cer- 
tain length of time the mines would yield too little to afford 
the payment of the wages for the workers engaged in mining, 
the consequence would be that all other branches would have 
to bear that loss, and by redistributing it upon the whole, 
nobody would feel it as a burden. Is that plain enough for 
you ? 

Reporter : I understand it now. But there are many other 
objections I have yet to make. For instance, I would like to 
know how dangerous and disagreeable labor is to be classified ? 
It may be simple and easy enough to place a knob upon a tower 
four hundred feet high, or to sweep a dirty, unwholesome 
sewer, but I don't think that anybody could be induced to per- 
form such work if the pay for it were not more than other 
similar unskilled labor. 

Socialist: You are right. The present injustice of paying 
the lowest wages to those who perform the most dangerous 



— 4i — 

and disagreeable labor will not be repeated by the new society, 
nor will it pay the highest wages to those whose task is the 
easiest and most agreeable. Bat, I would also like to point out 
to you that even under present circumstances the dangers and 
discomforts of most occupations might be prevented, or re- 
duced to almost nothing by appropriate measures and an im- 
proved working apparatus. But that doesn't pay at present, 
and the bosses care not how many workers are crippled, or 
how many lives are destroyed; and for that reason they neglect 
to introduce measures of safety and comfort for the protection 
of their " hands." But in the future, when every worker is in- 
terested in his own and his fellow-workers' safety and happi- 
ness, such measures will be applied; and besides, for disagree- ■ 
able and dangerous work the pay will not be only highest, but 
the time devoted to such work will be reduced considerably; I 
know very well that such a proposition will be ridiculed and 
laughed at. But that is immaterial. It is simply a just demand 
that the miner, who exposes his life when working thousands 
of feet below the surface of the earth, or of the carpenter and 
mason laboring hundreds of feet above, will be as well paid for 
a three or four hours' workday as the writer, the clerk, and 
book-keeper will for his pleasant and easy work in a comfort- 
able and agreeable room for seven or eight hours' labor. The 
regulating of such and other exceptions upon the great field of 
social production will be done entirely according to the de- 
mand for these labors, and no one will have to complain of in- 
justice in this respect. 

Reporter : Very well. But don't you think that under such 
circumstances in a society where no one can become what is 
to-day called "rich" a state of general indifference will take 
place, when no one will have a special inducement to excel 
others ? Will not ambition cease, and will not that be detri- 
mental to society at large ? Will there be anybody striving to 
make new discoveries and inventions, if it is not accompanied 
by personal gain and advancement ? 

Socialist: Your supposition is based upon the fallacious 
and barbarous view that it is " human nature" to seek nothing 
but to " make money." I say that such is not the case. It is 



— 42 — 

human nature to strive for improvement, to excel others. But 
at all events the prevailing social condition shapes the nature 
of the object mankind is endeavoring to accomplish. The 
present condition of things, of course, makes men to consider 
wealth the most desirable object to obtain, and for this reason 
all teachings and admonitions, in that respect, to the child, be 
it at home or at school, are fruitless. The teachings of moral- 
ity, or of so-called religion, go for naught if the young man or 
woman, when entering practical life, finds everything going 
contrary to what has been talked or preached into him or her 
in the days of youth by impractical and deluded teachers and 
parents. Go to the Indians to-day and tell them that it is bar- 
barous to take the scalps of the enemy killed in battle. They 
will tell you that the young warrior will find life not worth liv- 
ing if he be no longer allowed to attain the highest honors his 
forefathers had been attaining for ages gone by. What to the 
young warrior is the scalp of his enemy is to our youth the 
possession of wealth. You know the old saying: " Make money, 
my son; honestly, if you can — but make money." Do you 
really think that such a shameful motto should be the watch- 
word of human society ? No, Sir. If a new generation will 
have grown up under institutions which allow of no robbery of 
the masses by a privileged few but whose principal aim and 
object is the welfare of all, you will see that mankind will 
quite naturally change its striving for self-interest into a gen- 
eral endeavor for mutuality and co-operative labor for the 
benefit of all. And as to new discoveries and inventions, it is 
fortunately the case already in these our times that they are not 
made exclusively for personal gain. The greatest scientific 
discoveries and inventions originate from entirely different, 
much nobler causes. But, who told you that the Socialists 
refuse to recompensate discoverers and inventers for their 
labor? To the contrary. While to-day, for instance, most of 
the inventors do not enjoy the fruits of their inventions, or get 
very little for them — as can be proven by thousands of cases — 
and the lion share of the result of their labors goes to some 
capitalist who possesses the means of making an invention 
pay, society organized according to our plan, would guarantee 
%q discoverers and inventors the full fruit of their work. Spe? 



— 43 — 

cially all inventions tending to improve mechanical appliances 
— and to these you are referring, I think — are already made to 
order, so'to speak at the present time. In the future the Pub- 
lic Department of Inventions will undoubtedly organize a 
branch of service whose exclusive object it will be to invent 
mechanical improvements of all kinds. It is evident that these 
professional inventors will receive the highest wages, like the 
best workers in any other branch. And special rewards will 
be paid for every new invention of great importance. An in- 
vention, for instance, by which the hours of labor of all 
workers would be reduced considerably might be rewarded 
by paying to the inventor a pension for the rest of his life; 
and all other inventions might be rewarded in proportion. 
You will admit that to arrange such matters would m^et with 
little difficulty under a system of social co-operation. And, 
before all other things, the future system will have the ad- 
vantage that the individual discoverer and inventor will get the 
reward, and not some idle, good-for-nothing parasite. 

Reporter : I am satisfied that such an arrangement would 
solve this problem. And yet, the question of improving ma- 
chinery reminds me of another objection. You have already 
stated that in consequence of the introduction of machinery a 
large number of workers becomes superfluous, and that under 
the new system more " hands " would be made idle than even 
to-day. How would you overcome that obstacle ? 

Socialist : That difficulty exists within our present social 
state of affairs only; it could not exist under the system pro- 
posed by the socialists. To-day, of course, every new and im- 
proved machine becomes a curse to so many workers whom it 
throws out of work. In the new society, the people who be- 
come superfluous in one branch are employed to produce other 
commodities and luxuries, or their becoming superfluous causes 
a reduction of the hours of labor for all other workers. 

Reporter: I don't quite understand what you mean. 

Socialist: Let us suppose the United States and Canada to 
be united into one communistic commonwealth. It would form 
a world by itself and its inhabitants would be able to raise and 
produce whatever human beings may need and desire for their 



— 44 — 

comfort and happiness. And then let us suppose all the differ- 
ent branches of production to be organized into trades unions, 
or whatever you may call it, for the purpose of producing all 
the necessaries and luxuries of life according to the best, most 
rational process conducted by the directions of the scientists 
of the age. Let us furthermore suppose the people who are 
the mediaries between the producer and the consumer to be 
organized like the producers, also the people who carry on the 
business of transportation and communication, and supposed 
their income to be regulated according to what the producers 
receive for their labor; and let it be supposed that seven hours 
be sufficient for everybody to work in order to produce what- 
ever is needed, and to do all other business for the whole com- 
monwealth. Let us finally suppose that by some great inven- 
tion the entire department of machinery and mechanism would 
have to be revolutionized, as it may be any day at the present 
period, by the steam engine being supplanted by the electro- 
dynamic motor. By such a sudden change one-fourth of all 
the workers hitherto employed in that department might be- 
come superfluous, as the quantity of products to be brought 
forth by that department could be created by applying the new 
invention in three quarters of the time formerly necessary for 
the process of production. Under the new social system the 
introduction of such an invention would be a blessing at once 
for all mankind.; for, the one-fourth of workers having become 
superfluous could be employed to produce luxuries, that for- 
merly could not be produced for the lack of laboring force and 
time. So, you see, that every new invention, even if it makes 
ever so many workers superfluous in one branch, will result in 
an advantageous improvement of the condition of the whole. But, 
the time will certainly come when all desires of mankind for 
comfort and enjoyment will be fully satisfied, and if then a new 
invention should be made, it will be applied for the purpose of 
reducing the hours of labor of all workers; and so, I think, I 
have proved to you that our society with its easily manageable 
organization has in its hands the means of using all new im- 
provements, discoveries or inventions, yea, even every unex- 
pected favor from nature's bountiful treasury for the benefit of 
every individual, consequently for the benefit of the whole. 



- 45 - 

Reporter: But, right here, I would like to make the very- 
same objection you made only a short while ago. You said — 
and I think you were right — that it would be nonsensical to 
ask an unemployed cigarmaker to cultivate land out west. 
Even if you gave him all the implements necessary for success- 
ful cultivation, he would starve on the most fertile ground 
donated to him. Therefore, if we suppose that under the new 
social system an invention had been made by which 10,000 
cigarmakers would become superfluous, what would you do 
with them ? Would you have them till the soil, or what would 
they do ? 

Socialist: You forget two important points. While to-day 
these 10,000 workers would be left to shift for themselves, that's 
to say: while they would be altogether helpless, the new so- 
ciety, in which all inventions and improvements will imme- 
diately benefit everyone, will have the means to gradually em- 
ploy these 10,000 workers in other branches, where they will 
be occupied with some labor similar to their former trade, and 
they will soon learn it; the cost of such changes will be easily 
paid out of the gain accruing from the introduction of the new 
invention for the whole society. The second point of import- 
ance you forget, is that the division of labor will continually go 
on, and all work will finally be reduced to a few simple move- 
ments of the workers' hands in turning on some piece of ma- 
chinery, or changing its speed, or stopping it, etc., a task that 
will be easy to learn within a very short time; consequently the 
change from one occupation to another will not cause serious 
trouble neither to the whole people, nor to the individuals 
undergoing such change; and, what to-day causes disaster to 
hundreds and thousands, will, under the new system benefit 
every single individual of the whole commonwealth. 

Reporter : I suppose, of course, that the organization as 
you pictured it to me as existing in the United States and 
Canada, should be extended all over the world ? 

Socialist: Communism and Socialism will only then be a 
blessing to all mankind when it shall extend over every land 
of the globe; and when this should be the case, it will result in a 
glorious condition of those of whose future happiness and wealth 



- 46 - 

we have almost no conception in these days of misery and irra- 
tionality. But, how the development will go on and what 
countries will organize themselves into communistic republics 
first, can hardly be determined at present. Yet, it is probable that 
the present so-called civilized countries of Europe and Amer- 
ica will, after almost simultaneous social revolutions, organize 
upon a communistic basis. And as soon as this is accomplished 
the different communistic countries will undoubtedly enter 
into an international compact by which the administration and 
organization of the whole will be materially improved and any 
possible difficulties removed. The laboring people of all coun- 
tries, if no longer oppressed and robbed of the full fruit of 
their labor by monarchical or capitalistic oppressors, have 
but this one common interest and desire to labor and en- 
joy life in common, and to lighten each others' burdens. 

Reporter: It is hardly necessary for me to ask, whether 
those who are unable to work from old age or any other in- 
firmity, will be cared for by society at large ? 

Socialist: Undoubtedly, and yet there will be a difference. 
Whenever and wherever the needy and the poor are taken care 
of, it is done by meting out to him alms, and almost invariably 
in a scanty, miserable, humiliating manner. The Socialists 
would never do that. We believe that everyone who became 
decrepit after having done his duty as a worker, or the unfor- 
tunate beings who were born into this world without the neces- 
sary strength and ability to work themselves, have a right to 
existence as well as all the able-bodied and healthy people, 
and that therefore it is the duty of society to support them and 
make them participate in the blessings of co-operative labor 
just as well as if they had done their share in producing the 
necessaries of life and comfort for society. But, here I would 
like to mention the probability that, while the children in the 
future state will be better educated, and while they will not be 
put to work as early in life as at present, the grown population 
will not contain as many invalids and disabled individuals as 
under present circumstances, because the inability to work, 
diseases and infirmities, are generally caused by the want of 
the means of life, and by overwork, as prevailing to-day. Even 



- 47 ~ 

old people will be able to do a great many things when all are 
sufficiently nourished, and when none are continually worrying 
and craving for food and shelter. That this is possible you 
can observe when looking over the list of names of our old 
merchants and manufacturers, who in spite of having worked 
all their lives, are as ruddy and crafty as if they were young 
men; and this is only because they have been living a life of 
material welfare and free from need in any form whatever. 

Reporter: And this organization of society at large into 
trades unions, as it might be called, is the final object* com- 
munism is striving for ? 

Socialist: It is the first and not the last aim the Socialists 
desire to accomplish. To organize social production upon the 
broadest and most accomplished scale imaginable, and regulated 
according to the wants and desires of mankind at the time being, to 
make society the owner of the land and the means of com- 
munication and of the means as well as the prodiuts of 
labor, as far as the latter are not private property already, 
is the first object we are striving for, and it is the economic 
basis upon which the new society bases its organization and continices 
to develop into higher and nobler proportions. I want you to tell 
that to all who may ask you what the communists want to do, 
and whenever you find anyone who says that they want any- 
thing else, tell him that he is either a knownothing or a slander- 
er. Moreover, " Beware of spurious imitations !" Always bear 
in mind that production uniformly organized and conducted 
upon a rational, scientific plan, is the only proposition which 
if carried out, will guarantee the welfare of mankind. If any 
political humbug or quack proposes any other system which 
excludes production upon such a scale, and leaves out the 
communistic ownership of the soil and the tools and means of 
labor, — may they call it anarchism or anything else — tell them 
that such is not socialism nor co?nmunism, it is not what WO 
want ! 

Reporter: You have been speaking so far, only about pro- 
ducing, all sorts of things, and also about their distribution 
among those who produced them according to the part each 
worker took in the process of producing, but you did not men- 

\ 



- 48 - 

tion anything about consumption, or how the products of labor 
are to be used. You just said that these products are the 
property of the commonwealth as far as they have not become 
private property. Then, there is to be private property in the 
society as proposed by you, or even private capital ? 

Socialist : The term private capital is, as we consider it, a 
self-contradiction. Capital means anything bearing interest, 
rent, or better it brings to its owner what others have made. 
No such thing will be known under the socialistic system of the 
future. But, there will be private property. Everybody will 
be at liberty to do what he pleases with the orders for any 
kind of products or enjoyments — to-day such orders are called 
" money " — he may be entitled to for his labor. There will be 
those who~will spend their income for eating, drinking, cloth- 
ing and other necessaries and comforts of life, while others 
will be saving in this respect and use part of their wages to 
buy books, pictures, etc.; and again others will use their sav- 
ings for the purpose of traveling, studying, etc. The organiza- 
tion of the communists will guarantee to everyone the possibil- 
ity of an existence free from restraint as far as individual 
preferences do not injure the welfare of the whole. 

Reporter : And you mean to say that under the commun- 
istic system there will be no one living upon the labor of others 
while being an idler himself ? 

Socialist : Under no circumstances; for, how could it be ? 

Reporter: Take, for instance, two families with an average 
income of $1,800 per annum, that is to say, they receive orders 
to the amount of that sum for the labor they have performed. 
One of these families lives quite economically and saving, and 
their expenses amount to not more than $800 per annum, while 
the other family spends every cent of their income. After fivQ or 
six years the economical family has saved orders to the amount 
of $6,000. Could not they use that sum somehow for the pur- 
pose of depriving others of the fruit of their labor ? 

Socialist: If you would only explain how they would do it ? 
What in the world should that saving family do with that 
$6000 ? In order to get at the fruit of the labor of other people 



— 49 — 

they would have to buy land, build tenement houses, and ex- 
tort rent from those who were to move into such houses. But 
there is no land for sale, and no one would live in the house of 
any private owner as the community owns all houses. Or, they 
would have to own a large quantity of tools, machinery, etc. 
But, while they might own one sewing machine, if they should 
think to thereby profit, they could not put up 50 sewing 
machines for 50 poor, helpless girls, to work for them; for, 
all tools, machinery, factories etc., belong to the people. 
Neither are there any railroad stocks and bonds to specu- 
late in, as ' the railroads, telegraphs etc., belong to the 
people also, and there is no need of stocks and bonds. Conse- 
quently you see that the $6,000 would have to be spent for 
something if the members of that family want to enjoy what 
their earnings represent. And, because this is so, and as every- 
body knows it to be so, there is no inducement for anyone to 
" save " anything. Everybody knows that as long as he labors 
his existence in comfort and ease is guaranteed by the common- 
wealth, that he will be taken care of, if he should become un- 
able- to work, and that under no circumstances his children will 
be allowed to perish. Consequently, the impossibility for any- 
one to live upon the fruit of the labor of others will prevent 
people from saving up their earnings for the purpose of robbery 
and spoliation. Everyone will therefore spend what he can; 
and those who are delegated to administer public affairs, will 
see that there be no overproduction, nor that the commodities 
needed for all will be lacking at any time. 

Reporter: You spoke of the different periods to be marked 
by the different stages of development of the socialistic organ- 
ization, and the state of affairs, you just mentioned, you said 
would come directly after the overthrow of the present system. 
Will the later periods materially differ in regard to the organic 
basis and social features from the condition just described 
by you ? 

Socialist: Not to any considerable extent as far as the ten- 
dency of the socialistic movement is concerned, but somewhat 
in regard to the development to the ideal of perfection in com- 
munism. For, those differences in the income of individuals 



— So — 

which, owing to tne natural development of human beings will 
continue for some time, would more and more disappear under 
the future state of things. And for these reasons, in the begin- 
ning of the new era, the elements comprising the old society, 
with their characteristic differences in knowledge and abilities 
will prevail to a great extent; but, as the new society will im- 
mediately introduce its thorough and uniform process of educa- 
tion in all branches of knowledge and mechanical pursuits, 
these differences will soon be effaced. But, besides, it is to be 
remembered — and this is of great importance — that the rapid 
development of new inventions and improvements, and the scien- 
tific division of labor in all departments of industry, will sim- 
plify the task imposed upon the producers in all branches to 
such an extent that every young person, female as well as male, 
coming from the exceedingly well-managed institutions of 
social learning, will be enabled to immediately enter any voca- 
tion affording him, or her, a comfortable living; and thus the 
prevailing differences of ability causing the difference in 
the income of the individual workers will also more and 
more disappear. May be that two generations will suffice to 
accomplish this. The highest ideal, of course, would be to 
have the income not merely regulated by the accomplish- 
ments of the individual nor even by the time during which the 
individual assists in the process of producing, but that every 
one serve society according to his, or her, best ability, and 
that the reward for doing so be exactly what every individual 
needs and desires. But this ideal could only be realized 
if every spark of brutal egoism were extinguished in the' hearts 
of mankind, and if altruism, the principle of mutuality, which 
first considers the welfare of the whole and then that of the 
individual proper, has become second nature to everyone. But, 
why should we trouble ourselves about the state of affairs of 
the far future which neither we, ourselves, nor our children and 
grandchildren will ever see ? The road toward this noble ideal, 
if it can ever be reached, will undoubtedly lead through the 
socialistic organization as I have described it to you a short 
while ago. 

Reporter : But is it not quite unnatural, and would it not 
be altogether void of results to root out that " brutal egoism," 



— 5i — 

the disappearance of which seems to give you such great 
hopes for the future ? 

Socialist: Are you a Christian? 

Reporter: I hope so. 

Socialist: And what is the fundamental principle underlying 
your religion ? Is it not to strive for the rooting out of that 
brutal egoism from the nature of man, to love "thy neighbor 
as thyself ?" And if you now, all of a sudden, designate this 
principle to be practically impossible — what a humbug your 
kt great religion " must be ! But, you are right. The mere 
preaching won't do. And, the socialists knowing this to be so, 
are aiming, as I told you before, at establishing institutions by 
which the effusions of that brutal egoism will be made impos- 
sible. They know that the time will come when brutality, like 
all other instincts, or germs, the development of whose growth 
is being prevented by the application of scientific and rational 
means, will in the end be crippled and finally die out entirely. 
And thus socialism will, in this respect, by the application of 
its eminently practical measures, really accomplish what Christ- 
ianity has been attempting to accomplish all in vain for the 
last two thousand years. 

Reporter : I might ask a great many more questions, but 
I see that by an interview like this the details of such a great 
plan could not all be exhausted; and therefore, admitting that 
my objections are only of minor importance, I should like to 
see only a few more important points to be considered. For, 
while understanding that all productive labor is to be organ- 
ized and paid according to a well-defined system, I do not 
quite see how teachers, artists, literary men, poets, and other 
representatives of art and science could be organized into co- 
operative trade unions. You are probably aware of the fact 
that the Socialists are suspected that they little appreciate all 
these things ? 

Socialist : I know it: yet, this is but another proof of the 
fact that those who oppose the plans of the Socialists, know as 
little about their views in this respect as they know of their 
economic propositions. To those who thus judge the Social- 
ists I would recommend to attend socialistic meetings, to read 
their papers, their books and the literature they are scattering 



— 52 — 

broadcast for agitating purposes. These slanderers would soon 
find out that the Socialists more highly appreciate all scientific 
and artistic endeavors than the average public does. And this 
is but natural. Any man who is striving for the improvement 
of the present condition of society is always a lover of the 
beautiful and of- the advancement of art and science. He will 
therefore appreciate all intellectual labor. But, of course, the 
Socialists also know, that at all times the intellectual condition 
of man has been in close relation to his economic welfare. 
They know that true art could not flourish any length of time 
when the masses of the people are suffering and starving, and 
but a few privileged ones are rolling in luxury. They are 
aware of this, and they see that in a society of classes science 
becomes the hired, meretricious-tool of the ruling class. For 
this reason they confidently hope — and from my point of 
view I declare that they are right — that art and science in a 
society where want and misery as well as unnerving super- 
abundance and demoralizing luxury are unknown, and all are 
well educated, will be more equally enjoyed, and that conse- 
quently they will be more highly appreciated than in our pres- 
ent society. 

Reporter: But, how will the representatives of art and 
science, how will poets, artists, scientists, teachers, lawyers, 
physicians etc., be rewarded for their labors ? 

Socialist: Allow me to tell you, first, that some of these 
professions will, as far as the number of their representatives 
is concerned, be considerably reduced. What will be the use 
of " lawyers " in a society where the question of " mine and 
thine " will be so clearly defined, and where the principal mo- 
tive for all so-called crimes, misery and want, is removed? 
How many physicians will be needed where no one is suffering 
from want and exposure, where nobody needs overworking 
himself, where all are living in comfortable homes, and no one 
will swallow more of the good things of the world than his sys- 
tem can digest — where gluttony and vice are impossible ? But, 
at any rate, I do not doubt, but that even these professions will 
be organized in a similar manner as the trades, and that those 
who devote their time and energy to them will be amply re- 
warded for their ability and skill. Though not arrogating to 



S3 — 

nlyself the right of prescribing how the society of the future 
will arrange these matters, yet I believe that you will concede 
to me the following points without any further dispute : It will 
be easy to find a system according to which to employ teach- 
ers, physicians, etc., to fully remunerate them for their services 
to society, and to leave them sufficient time for study and re- 
creation besides attending to their regular public duties. So 
the representatives of creative genius, poets, artists, sculptors, 
scientists will find their places within our new social system; 
they will be rewarded for their labors in receiving appointments 
for the highest places at the great public institutions of art and 
science (as has been done to-day in the cases of men like Dra- 
per, Agassiz, Marsh, Arago, Virchow, Du Bois Reymond, Cor- 
nelius, Lessing (the painter), Max Mueller and others), or in 
any other form. Indeed, if even these men would have to sell 
their talent, the results of their talent respectively, upon the 
open market of life, as they are doing to-day — where would 
they fare better, I ask you ? In a society of the present day, 
composed at nine-tenths of rough, uneducated, ignorant, poor 
and overburdened people, or in our new society of well-edu- 
cated, intelligent, wealthy and comfortable citizens, who in the 
average know something about art and science and have plenty 
of leisure time to occupy themselves with elevating and plea- 
sant contemplation and study ? 

There can be but one answer to this question — the one in 
the affirmative. Within the course of time intellectual occupa- 
tion in general w r ill undergo unavoidable changes. For, as the 
hours of labor for the production of material things will be 
more and more reduced according to the progress made in the 
application of labor-saving machinery, it will become a necessary 
supplement to every intellectually creative activity which in it- 
self and in its results is a reward to the individual performing it. 

As to this state of affairs the " English Social-Democratic 
Federation, " says in its proclamation of January, 1885, viz. : 
" In such a society as this which we propose, while all^men 
would live untormented by anxiety for their livelihood, while 
no one could advance himself by pushing back his neighbor, 
there would be plenty of room for emulation; for those who had 
any special capacity would have leisure and opportunity to de- 



— S4 - 

velop it, instead of being, as they now are, crushed into uni- 
formity and stupidity by the necessity for haste and ceaseless 
dull work; the scientist, the artist, the man of letters would no 
longer have to sell himself at auction for the pleasure of the 
idle and incapable, but sure of his livelihood, not driven to 
earn special profits by the exercise of his talents, would be able 
to devote himself deliberately to science and the arts, and satis- 
fy all the requirements of his genius; nor can we doubt that 
under these happier conditions the number of people able and 
willing to exercise special talents for the good of the commun- 
ity would much increase, so that the destruction of the so-called 
individualist system would result in a prodigious development 
of individuality." 

Reporter: And then, it would seem to me that in the com- 
munistic society the liberty of the individual would be less re- 
strained than in any other social organization ever in existence 
heretofore ? 

Socialist: Undoubtedly it would. Only imagine the situa- 
tion as it would really be: Everybody is given a chance to make 
his or her living, according to taste and choice in any indus- 
trial, agricultural or commercial pursuit; and all the facilities 
and opportunities to make that choice and to successfully work 
in any branch of business and trade would be guaranteed by 
the institutions of that society of the future. Every one may 
avail himself, or herself, of these facilities and opportunities ac- 
cording to the respective individual's own free will and pleasure. 
There will be no compulsion of any kind except that of the 
laws of reason and individual disposition, the latter to be re- 
strained only so far as is necessary to avoid the violation of the 
rights of others, or of society as a whole. This is true liberty, 
and the sole freedom really agreeing with the organization of 
the nature of mankind. 

Reporter : I might ask a great many questions more; the 
subject is really interesting me a good deal. For instance : 
will there be any taxes in your society, and how are the tax- 
payers to be assessed; what will be the position of woman, and 
how about the family question which, it seems, the public at 
arge does not very well understand — — 



— .*$-■-* 

Socialist (interrupting) : Hold on, Sir ! I know what you 
are about to say. You are going to voice the common preju- 
dices and slanders of the wealthy populace whose ruling pro- 
pensities are threatened by the advent of victorious socialism. 
But, I shall answer you immediately. To-day, my dear Sir, the 
overwhelming majority of mankind does not enjoy the real 
blessings of matrimony and family-life. For, matrimony to-day 
is an institution for the support of some of our female population, 
while hundreds of thousands of women and children are com- 
pelled to work for a living in order to satisfy the dire wants of 
their bodies. In our society all this will be different. Woman will 
be equal to man. If she be married her existence will be gua- 
ranteed on account of the labor she performs as a mother and 
a teacher of her young children. And no woman will be com- 
pelled to take a husband merely to be supported; her work 
will support her under all circumstances, and children will, of 
course, be expected to participate in the process of production 
considerably later in life than at present, after having been 
fitted thereto by a thorough scientific and practical education. 
You may ask, whether society will have the means thus to edu- 
cate the growing generation ? Indeed, it will. The work of 
assessing and collecting taxes, if you chose to call it so, will be 
very simple and practical. The necessary amount to be raised 
for public purposes will be estimated, and regulated according 
to the demands of the time; and from every certificate for labor 
produced, or certificate of wages, if you please, a certain per- 
centage will be deducted, and the amount of the deduction will 
be according to the amount of the wages, which may also be 
affected by the number of members in each family. You see 
that it will not be very difficult to solve all these questions. But 
now let me tell you one thing: we might sit here till to-morrow 
morning to talk over all these minor arrangements and yet we 
would not get through; therefore, let us speak about them at 
some other time when you are at leisure. May it suffice at 
present that I have shown you by what the Socialists propose 
to replace the present system of production which brings misery 
and starvation to the masses of the people. Consequently, if 
it be impossible to attack the principle upon which the entire 
socialistic structure is based, it would be reasonable to suppose 



- 56 - 

that the aspirations of the Socialists are rational, practicable. 
If they are carried out in practice, a society will be organized 
in which every one will have the means to live like a human 
being, and to participate in the comforts and enjoyments of 
life brought forth and produced by a society whose members 
are all contributing their best efforts to the common welfare. 
In such a society the interests of one are the concern of all, 
and vice versa, while the economic institutions will be so regu- 
lated that no individual can live upon the labor of others, 
i. e. that no one can rob the rest. I now ask you whether any 
intelligent human being could doubt that such a society with 
such noble aims and objects would not easily solve all the mi- 
nor questions of matrimony, family, education, elections, taxa- 
tion, etc. ?! For, and I have to repeat it, upon a communistic- 
economic basis humanity would be afforded, for the first time 
in its history the possibility, I might even say the necessity, of an 
harmonious development. Who would doubt that such an har- 
monious development will take place ? 

Reporter (after reflecting for a short while) : I shall leave 
this question to be answered by the learned gentlemen of our 
editorial staff, for I, on my part, have no longer any objections. 



Reporter : But I have one more, and a very momentous 
question to ask you: How are you going to bring about that 
great, enormous revolution which is to replace the present so- 
ciety by the socialistic one ? 

Socialist: This is one of the commonly occurring questions 
which — allow me to say so — are generally asked mostly by 
thoughtless people who know nothing of history. No revolu- 
tion has ever been "made," but a radical change of social sys- 
tems where one principle is substituted for one of totally differ- 
ent tendency — and this is what I mean by revolution — has 
always been effected according to the natural development of 
society itself without the possibility for any one to arrest or 
materially accelerate its course, and therein lies the certainty 
with which we expect the victory of our ideas that they are not 
idle speculations, but that they are based upon facts, and that 
they must necessarily, according to natural development, one 
become a reality. 



— s? — 

Reporter: It seems to me, to the contrary that, as you have 
said it yourself, the present economic development is continu- 
ally strengthening and fortifying monopolism ? 

Socialist: Just so. This is one side of the development: 
but the other one, going hand in hand with this, is the enorm- 
ous decrease of the middle classes whose elements are sinking 
to the level of the proletarian, of the non-possessing class, very 
fast. With every new factory smoke-stack part of the old sys- 
tem of producing by hand is being replaced by a new branch 
of the modern system of production, by steam and machinery; 
the opening of every new store and emporium of gigantic pro- 
portions means ruin and bankruptcy to hundreds of small busi- 
ness men and shop keepers; whenever a capitalist/ buys up 
several hundreds of thousands of acres of land for the purpose 
of modern farming upon a grand scale, hundreds of farmers 
who cannot compete with the gigantic monopolist are doomed; 
every new invention by which more workmen are made super- 
fluous, ruins so many more manufacturers who are unable to 
acquire the new machines; the great monopolies like the Stan- 
dard Oil Co., the Telegraph and Railroad Companies, are con- 
tinually confiscating the labor and the property of the smaller 
capitalists, and in this way the army of the disinherited ones, 
of the wage-slaves, of those who have an interest in seeing the 
present system destroyed is constantly increased, while the 
number of those in whose interest the preservation of the sys- 
tem would be, must necessarily decrease. And finally — as the 
mass of the people will no longer tolerate such a state of affairs 
— the crash must inevitably come; and, as the entire economic 
organization is evolving towards co-operative production at an 
immense scale, as the victorious revolutionists will find it, so 
to speak, ready made for them to take possession of — as I have 
already described it to you in the instance of that great factory 
— there is no doubt but that not alone that revolution will take 
place, but that its tendency also, that the way in which it will 
shape things in the future, will be clearly defined. 

Reporter: Then, the Socialists refrain from influencing the 
development of society altogether ? 

Socialist : Not at all! I told you that we could not mater- 
ially accelerate the development toward a sudden social crash 



- S 8 - 

as the nature of things has this tendency already. Yet there 
is plenty of room for wholesome revolutionary agitation 
and action, among which we consider as very important the 
organization of the workmen, and of all who have the same 
class interest as the workmen, in order to enable them to resist 
at least somewhat any further economic degradation. We also 
believe that all phases and occurrences of public life should be 
utilized for the purpose of preparing the way for the great 
change to come. I mean, that whenever opportunity offers 
we should introduce measures of relief like the reduction of the 
hours of labor, the prohibition of child-labor, the organization 
of bureaus of labor statistics, the payment of equal wages for 
men and women, if the task and the quality of the labor be 
equal, etc. etc. For the purpose of accomplishing our aims 
and objects we recommend all expedient means that may be in 
the reach of those who are suffering from the effects of the 
evil system of these days. We make use of the legal institu- 
tions of the country we live in; we take part in elections when- 
ever we think best to do so; we agitate in public and in private 
by the means of meetings, by publishing newspapers and tracts, 
and whomsoever we come in contact with we try to convince 
that we are teaching what is true and rational. And those whom 
we have convinced see it clearly before them that a lasting im- 
provement of their condition can only be brought about by the 
total destruction of the present social system. ~ A man who has 
once become a Socialist knows but one more object in life: To 
devote himself to the noble work of liberating the laboring 
people; and then comes the second part of the duty of Social- 
ists: To show to those whom they have converted by what the 
old system which they endeavor to destroy, is to be replaced ? 
They soon understand what we want — better than all the 
learned gentlemen who profess to possess the secret of solving 
the great social question. They see that our propositions are 
sensible and practical. To enlighten the workmen in this re- 
spect is' as necessary as to make them act in common with us, 
in order to avoid that after the last battle of the revolution 
chaos 'should prevail ; to enable them to assist in rebuild- 
ing society according to a real and rational social order, 
and to make any reaction in favor of the old system an im- 



— 59 — 

possibility. This kind of agitation is what the organized Social- 
ists of all countries — in the United States the " Socialistic 
Labor Party " — are actively engaged in. 

Reporter : So you believe that in spite of the peaceable 
means you propose to employ, a violent revolution will come 
in the end ? 

Socialist : In order to best answer this question I will read 
to you what the "Socialistic Labor Party" of this country have 
said in a Manifesto, adopted at their congress convened at 
Baltimore in December, 1883 : 

"Organize; make use of the legal institutions of the land; do your utmost 
to send your own representatives, independent of the old corrupt parties, 
into the legislative bodies. Make the most of this opportunity to strengthen 
your organization and to propagate the doctrines you aim at. In one word, 
leave no practicable method untried, to strengthen yourselves and your 
cause, and to weaken your enemies. But perhaps you may ask, whether it 
is possible to accomplish your aims by these means, peaceably? 

Fellow workmen ! Look around and listen to the teachings of history. 
History shows, that the privileged classes have rarely, if ever, surrendered 
their privileges, without forcible compulsion. The history of our own 
country furnishes a striking example in the late rebellion. And when you 
look around, what do you see ? You see everywhere the employer violate 
most brutally even the civil rights of the employed; you see, how they com- 
pel the workingman to give up his organizations, by threatening him with 
all the woes of hunger and misery; how they frequently try to sow bloody 
dissensions among the workingmen themselves, and oppose their just de- 
mands with force of arms; you see, furthermore, how in all these excesses, 
they are supported by a government, that to-day exists only in the interests 
of the ruling classes, by the police, and when necessary, by the military 
power. You know how these classes, well trained to all the tricks of politi- 
cal corruption, have always been skilful in the art of falsifying the alleged 
will of the people, expressed at the polls, and that they surely will employ 
these sorts of falsification all the more, the more dangerous to their interests 
the increasing organization of the workingmen becomes; under these con- 
ditions, we must expect that our enemies — when they see our power increase 
in a peaceful and legal way and our victory approaching — will, on their part 
— just as the slaveholders — become rebels, and that then the time will come 
for the cause of labor, when that old prime lever of all revolutions, — effec- 
tive as long as mankind is still in a barbarous state — force must be applied 
in order to place the working masses in control of the state, which then 
for the first time, will be the representative, not of a few privileged classes, 
but of all society." 

Reporter: Then you are aiming at bringing about a violent 
revolution notwithstanding ? 



*~ 6b — 

Socialist : Will you please look" out of this window ? 

Reporter: What do you mean ? 

Socialist : Do you see those clouds? 

Reporter: I see they are quite black, and from their gen- 
eral aspect I apprehend we shall soon have a tremendous 
thunderstorm. 

Socialist: Are you sure of it? 

Reporter: Indeed, I am. There — did you see the light- 
ning ? 

Socialist : Then, my dear Sir, you are " aiming " at bring- 
ing about a thunderstorm ? 

Reporter : What do you mean ? I have nothing to do with 
it — it is coming, it is there already! 

Socialist: Now then, my young friend : This is the way we 
are aiming at bringing about the violent revolution. We see it 
approaching — it is almost there, and we are preparing to meet 
its consequences. 



For sale at W. L. ROSENBERG, 60 St. Marks Place, New York. 

EXTRACTS FROM CARL MARX' CAPITAL $0 10 

BETTER TIMES. By A. Douai 5 

THE CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH; an exposi- 
tion of Modern Socialism. By Laurence Gronlund. Cloth 1 00 

SOCIALISM AND THE WORKER 5 

SOCIALISTIC TRACTS (No. 1. Government; 2. Who 
should be Socialists; 4. What Socialists Want; 7. 
Self-Employment ; 8. Why are we Poor ?) ^ 100 copies 20 

PEOPLE'S READER. By G. C. Stiebeling 15 

REPORTER AND SOCIALIST. (German edition) 8 

For German Readers: 

Ferdinand Lassalle's Gesammelte Reden und Schriften, 

Verlag von Wolff & Hoehne, 386 E. 4. Str , N. Y. 
Preis broschurt $4.00. Elegant gebunden, 3 Bande, $5.00. 

Central-Niederlage sozial. Schriften in Amerika. 

(Filiate der Zuricher Volksbuchhandlung) 

Empfiehlt sich zum Bezug aller sozialistischen Literatur. Es wird zu den- 
selben Bedingungen geliefert wie von der Schweiz aus. 

Wegen Uebersendung von Katalogea schreibe man an : 

A. HOEHNE, 386 East 4. Str., New York. 

JOHN HEINRICHS, 

175 ORCHARD STREET 175 

Niederlage aller soz. Bticher, Broschiiren, Zeitschriften &c. 



s^J ,r W 






fibers 









fM^flfvYV\ 












^^mff^B^ 












"aA r\/V 



^ A#^ 



AW AAAA.A^ 



YWWWV^ 









AA^' Oa 



,A/Y 



.-v-v 









A* A A 



AaAAaAw 



>A^a. 



-Oaaaaaaav aaa A aa/VV, 

/VVaAA WwW 

A' - _£o-Vv ASA r 



AA*A 



.AAA^A 



w™ 






vAAa/ 



iMW 



AaAaa«a;ao. 0/ ^^vyyvNA^«2«A?;^VV^ 



l A^A^«^«AXAAiA 



AAAf 






'^r^^AAAAA^A 



?GKMWft«J* 



f^R^V 



«^A^A 



/n f \AA 



*&**££ 



-^m^ 



WTPMtffc!: 



ff^^rtf^ 



mmm^? 



MWW(MM 



* s : ' «r 



^AAAA^A^AA 



vwrv 



maaOAaaa; 



iWrbMitt 



■trtfWr 1 * 



/WW',v 



'MrmM 



A. Alt A A 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 272 902 5 



